|  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY.  § 

Frinceton,  I\T.  J.        — Q 

Y 

BX    6195     .A7    1860 
Annan,    William,    1805-1882. 
The   difficulties   of  Arminian 
Methodism 


/ 


J/ lJ2^de<^a^£L<2 


e/ 1 6&ce£y£i^_    ^/^^^z^> 


/ 


THE   DIFFICULTIES 

OF 

ARMINIAN  METHODISM: 

A   SERIES    OF   LETTERS, 

ADDRESSED   TO   BISHOP   SIMPSON,    OF   PITTSBURGH. 

BI 

WILLIAM    ANNAN, 

AUTHOR  OF   "LETTERS  ON  PSALMODY,"  4C. 

FOURTH  EDITION- RE-WRITTEN  AND  ENLARGED. 


"The  prejudice  against  religious  controversy  is  irrational  and  hurtful." — Dr.  J.  M. 
Mason. 

"  The  truth  is  usually  elicited  by  conflict.    Agreement  is  the  result." — Prof.  Hodge. 

"  The  evils  of  controversy  are  transient :  the  good  it  produces  is  permanent."  — 
Robert  Hall. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

WILLIAM   S.    &    ALFRED   MARTIEN, 

No.    606    CHESTNUT    STREET. 
1860. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  I860,  by 
WILLIAM    ANNAN, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  tho  Western  Distric 
of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

8TKREOTYPED  BY    W.   S.    HAVEN,    PITTSBURGH,    PA. 


PREFACE. 


In  conversation  a  number  of  years  ago  with  an  esteemed  friend,  tho 
Rev.  (now  Dr.)  James  Linn,  of  Bellefonte,  Pa.  the  preparation  of 
this  work  was  first  suggested.  Three  editions  having  been  favorably 
received  by  the  Christian  public,  the  writer  has  been  induced  by  the 
solicitations  of  honored  brethren,  to  issue  in  an  enlarged,  and  he 
hopes,  improved  form,  a  fourth  edition. 

The  work  has  not  only  been  carefully  revised,  but  in  a  great  measure 
re-written.  Every  where  the  argument  has  been  extended,  and  he  trusts, 
strengthened,  especially  by  quotations  from  leading  Arminian  authori- 
ties.' The  Letter  on  "Imputed  Righteousness"  is  entirely  new,  being 
necessary  to  complete  the  investigation  of  the  "  Difficulties  of  Armin- 
ian Methodism."  It  has  been  the  aim  of  the  author  to  make  his  book, 
as  far  as  possible,  a  full  and  satisfactory  expose  of  the  polemical  weak- 
nesses of  modern  Arminianism.  For  this  end  he  has  gone  to  the  fountains, 
to  the  accredited  authorities  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  It  has  been 
his  earnest  desire  to  make  her  best  and  ablest  writers  speak  for 
themselves.  In  connection  with  Arminian  errors,  he  has  also  given 
a  concise  statement  of  revealed  truth. 

An  entirely  new  feature  in  the  re-construction  of  this  work,  is  the 
review  of  the  "  Objections  to  Calvinism,"  a  work  highly  eulogized  by 
Bishop  Simpson,  of  Pittsburgh.  This  book  has  been  constantly  by 
our  side,  its  most  important  and  objectionable  characteristics  have 
been  fairly  stated,  and  if  we  mistake  not,  fully  invalidated ;  and  in  not 
a  few  instances,  we  trust,  logically  thrown  back  upon  its  author  and 
indorsers. 

In  reading  these  "  Objections  to  Calvinism,"  and  indeed  in  every 
other  work  from  the  same  general  source,  we  are  constantly  reminded 
of  Bishop  Horsely's  advice  to  his  clergy,  in  his  last  charge:  "Take 
special  care,"  said  he,  "  in  aiming  your  shafts  at  Calvinism,  that  yon 
know  what  Calvinism  is,  *  *  *  and  that  you  can  distinguish  that 
which  belongs  to  our  common  Christianity."  It  is  a  curious  circum- 
stance, that  in  the  "  Refutation  of  Calvinism,"  one  of  his  brother 
bishops,  Tomliue  of  Lincoln,  assailed  "Justification  by  Faith,"  as 
one  of  the  monstrous  doctrines  of  the  Calvinistic  theology !     For  thia 

(iii) 


IV  PREFACE. 

fact  we  have  the  authority  of  the  "  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,"  Art. 
Calvinism.  Well  might  the  late  Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  say,  that 
"no  system  was  ever  more  grossly  misrepresented  or  niore  foully  vil- 
lified,"  and  "that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  writer  or  speaker  who 
has  opposed  it,  who  has  fairly  represented  the  system,  or  who  really 
appeared  to  understand  it."*  We  fear  the  modern  Bishop  (at  Pittsburgh), 
and  Mr.  Foster,  whom  he  indorses,  must  fall  under  the  same  condem- 
nation. 

According  to  these  authors,  Calvinism  is  justly  chargeable  with 
"unaccountable  and  horrid  teachings,"  "revolting  and  shameful  de- 
formities," "  inculcates  licentiousness  and  recklessness,  licenses 
crime;"  "a man  may  become  during  life  a  devil  in  sin,  but  he  cannot 
miss  of  heaven ;"  "  endangers  all  the  interests  of  sound  virtue  and  true 
religion ;"  "  dishonors  and  demonizes  the  God  of  the  universe,"  &c.  &c. 
Such,  according  to  Bishop  Simpson  and  Mr.  Foster,  are  correct  fea- 
tures of  Calvinism !  Their  book  swarms  with  such  misrepresentations 
as  these,  only  worse,  if  that  were  possible !  And  one  of  their  chief 
authorities  for  these  charitable  statements,  is  the  Presbyterian  "Con- 
fession of  Faith."  Now  in  all  Christian  courtesy,  we  of  course  must 
Buppose  that  these  Arminian  brethren  and  their  church,  which  pub- 
lishes "The  Objections  to  Calvinism,"  really  believe  their  own  state- 
ments. But  if  the  picture  be  a  true  one,  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
Mr.  Wesley,  when,  in  speaking  of  our  Larger  Catechism,  which  is  a 
summary  of  Calvinistic  doctrines,  he  says  that,  "in  the  main,  it  is  a 
very  excellent  composition."!  And  how  could  he  affirm,  "I  believe 
Calvin  was  a  great  instrument  of  God,  and  that  he  was  a  wise  and  pious 
man."  "John  Calvin  was  a  pious,  learned,  sensible  man. "J  Could 
such  a  man  have  taught  a  system  of  doctrine  as  foul  and  monstrous  as 
Atheism  itself? 

More  than  this :  The  Confession  of  Faith  of  our  church,  which 
Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson  say  they  have  demonstrably  convicted  of 
such  enormities,  was  the  work  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of 
Divines.  AVho  were  the  members  of  that  Assembly  ?  What  was  their 
character  ?  Let  the  "  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  "$  give  the  answer : 
That  Assembly  included  "  a  galaxy  of  illustrious  persons,  of  unequaled 
brightness" — "  such  were  the  leading  spirits  of  the  body" — "stars  of 
the  first  magnitude."  But  according  to  Messrs.  Simpson  and  Foster, 
this  "unequaled  galaxy  of  stars"  shed  upon  the  world  unequaled 
darkness ! 

*  On  Presbyterianisin,  pp.  26,  27.  t  Original  Sin,  part  2,  sec.  2. 

X  Works,  vols.  i.  and  ii.  pp.  516,  475.  §  Tor  October,  1848. 


PREFACE.  V 

Again:  "  That  famous  Confession,"  says  the  same  high  Methodist 
authority,  "is  iu  many  particulars  a  remarkable  production" — "a 
well  written  instrument" — though  "most  thoroughly  Calvinistic." 
"  Whoever  adopts  it  as  the  formulary  of  his  faith,  though  he  may  err 
as  to  some  speculative  points,  will  be  sound  in  all  things  essential  to  a 
saving  appreciation  of  the  way  of  salvation."  Compare  this  honorable 
testimony  with  the  statements  of  Messrs.  Simpson  and  Foster.  And 
what  have  been  the  practical  results,  the  fruits  of  this  Confession  ? 
"  The  influence  of  the  labors  of  the  Assembly,"  adds  the  same  "Meth- 
odist Quarterly,"  "has  been  extensive  and  controlling  over  multitudes 
of  the  better  classes  of  the  inhabitants  *  *  *  wherever  the  English 
language  is  spoken.  To  their  formularies'''' — mark  this  ! — "  millions  have 
owed  their  preservation  from  destructive  errors,  their  theological 
knowledge,  and  saving  sober  piety."  And  all  this  from  a  system 
which,  in  certain  of  its  features,  "inculcates  licentiousness,  licenses 
crime,  and  demonizes  the  God  of  the  universe!"  So  at  least  say  these 
Armiuian  brethren. 

But  has  not  this  "wild  vine"  of  Calvinistic  growth  and  culture, 
often  produced  "  the  grapes  of  Sodom  and  the  clusters  of  Gomorrah?" 
The  "  Methodist  Quarterly"  shall  answer:  "Ever  since," — i.  e.  since 
the  meeting  of  the  Westminster  Assembly — "it  (the  Confession)  has 
exerted  a  most  salutary  influence  in  the  world.  By  it  the  Romanizing 
tendency  of  the  English  Establishment  has  been  kept  in  check ;  its 
opposition  to  uniformity  has  perpetuated  religious  liberty,  while  its  deep- 
toned  orthodoxy  has  stood  as  a  bulwark  against  the  onsets  of  every  form 
of  seductive  error."    These  are  certainly  not  the  clusters  of  Sodom! 

In  confirmation  of  these  facts,  the  "  Methodist  Quarterly  "  next  cites 
Scotland  as  "an  exemplification  of  the  practical  tendency  of  these  form- 
ularies," and  quotes  from  the  Life  of  Alexander  Henderson  what  is 
called  "a  felicitous  statement  of  the  case,"  as  follows:  "These 
(Westminster)  divines  have  erected  a  monument  in  almost  every  heart 
in  Scotland.  *  *  *  Next  to  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  and 
the  translation  of  the  Bible  into  the  vulgar  tongue,  the  framing  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  and  of  the  Catechism,  has  conferred  the  greatest 
boon  on  every  Christian  in  our  country."  This  differs  slightly  from  the 
picture  of  Foster  and  Simpson ! 

Still  further :  The  same  Quarterly  has  a  glowing  eulogy  of  that 
distinguished  Calvinist,  Alexander  Henderson,  "who  wrote  the  prin- 
cipal part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  with  his  own  hand."  "He  was 
evidently  of  that  sort  of  men  of  which  martyrs  are  made."  "  His 
country  honors  his  memory  as  that  of  one  of  her  chief  benefactors 
1* 


VI  PREFACE. 

and  the  whole  Christian  world  owes  him  a  debt  -of  lasting  gratitude." 
If  our  Anninian  brethren,  Foster  and  Simpson,  are  right,  the  Christian 
world  must  be  grateful  for  very  small  favors  ! 

Finally,  says  the  Reviewer:  "The  famous  Westminster  Assembly, 
*  *  *  in  its  origin,  progress  and  end,  was  like  a  meteor  bursting 
suddenly  into  being  and  beaming  with  unwonted  splendor  for  a  season, 
&c."  "Not  so,  however,  were  its  effects.  Like  the  genial  flowers  and 
sunshine  of  early  spring,  it  imparted  life  and  strength  to  what  had 
seemed  utterly  dead,  *  *  *  the  pledge  of  the  coming  summer  and 
the  seed  time  of  that  harvest  whose  reaping  is  yet  in  progress."  Such 
were,  and  continue  to  be  the  fruits  of  a  system,  which  in  several  of  its 
distinctive  features,  "  licenses  crime  and  endangers  all  the  interests  of 
sound  virtue  and  true  religion!" 

And  even  when  this  Arminian  Reviewer  speaks  of  "  the  vexed  ques- 
tion of  decrees,"  it  is  in  a  tone  of  candor  and  fairness  very  different 
from  that  which  pervades  the  "Objections,"  &c.  "It  may  be  very 
difficult,"  he  says,  "by  the  force  of  logic,  to  evade  the  conclusion  of  the 
Predestinarians ;  it  is  equally  difficult  for  them  to  reconcile  their  own 
views  to  a  sense  of  justice  and  the  revealed  character  of  God.  Both 
parties  in  this  controversy  have  need  to  learn  that  some  things  are  too 
high  for  them.  If  Revelation  discloses  truths  which  threaten  to  clash 
in  their  remote  consequences,  it  becomes  us  to  leave  those  conse- 
quences to  God,  nor  dare  to  dim  the  glory  of  His  name  by  limiting  his 
natural  attributes  of  knowledge  aud  power,  &c."  The  allusion  we 
suppose  to  be  especially  to  Dr.  Adam  Clarke's  theological  foibles  in 
regard  to  Divine  Foreknowledge.  This  Reviewer  writes  in  a  spirit 
which  cannot  be  too  strongly  recommended  to  certain  persons,  who, 
with  presumptuous  daring,  "rush  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread."  But 
if  he  imagines  that  the  Calvinistic  scheme  "so  hides  the  moral  perfec- 
tions of  God,  as  to  make  him  appear  as  an  Almighty  Tyrant,"  we 
can  only  say  that  in  our  humble  judgment,  the  charge  is  altogether 
without  foundation,  and  indeed  may  be  fairly  retorted  upon  his  own 
system.  But  where  there  is  so  much  that  is  fair  and  candid,  so  much 
that  does  honor  both  to  the  head  and  heart  of  the  Reviewer,  so  much 
to  evince  a  spirit  that  bows  to  the  supremacy  of  truth,  even  when  she 
frowns  upon  him — in  such  circumstances  we  cannot  feel  any  great  dis- 
position to  find  fault. 


From  the  very  numerous  expressions  of  approval  which  the  writer 
has  at  different  times  received,  the  following  are  selected : 


PREFACE.  Vll 

From  the  late  Dr.  Archibald  Alexander. 
"  The  subject  has  been  treated  in  a  fair  and  masterly  manner.  The 
argumentative  part  of  the  work  is  admirably  conducted.  The  book 
should  be  widely  circulated  in  our  Church.  Such  a  defense  against 
the  ungenerous  attacks  of  many  assailants,  was  called  for,  and  will 
effectually  subserve  the  promotion  of  evangelical  truth." 

From  the  Biblical  Repertory. 
"  The  author  has  proved  himself  to  be  a  workman  that  need  not  be 
ashamed.     Whoever  wishes  to  see  the  objections  commonly  made  by 
Arminians  to  the  Calviuistic  system  fairly  rolled  back  on  their  own, 
will  find  satisfaction  in  the  perusal  of  this  volume." 

From  the  Rev.  William  Engles,  D.  D.  Editor  of  "  The  Presbyterian." 
"  Mr.  Annan  was  induced  to  undertake  this  work  in  self-defense. 
*  *  *  He  has  furnished  a  popular  treatise,  which  cannot  be  easily 
answered ;  hence  his  book  has  been  assailed  with  great  violence.  But 
we  cau  see  no  reason  for  so  much  wrath  in  the  temper  or  style  of  this 
volume.  He  has  carried  the  war  iuto  the  enemy's  territory.  We 
advise  Presbyterians,  when  assailed  by  Arminians,  to  procure  and  cir- 
culate this  book." 

From  Rev.  Dr.  Musgrave. 
"  I  was  rejoiced  to  see  a  new  edition  of  '  The  Difficulties  of  Armin- 
ian  Methodism.'  It  was  quite  time  the  slanders  aud  gross  misrepre- 
sentations of  that  denomination  should  be  repelled  and  exposed.  Tho 
author  has  '  used  them  up '  handsomely,  and  deserves  the  thanks  of  all 
who  love  truth,  honesty,  honor,  and  rational  piety." 

From  Rev.  Dr.  Elliott,  of  the  Western  Theological  Seminary. 
"  The  work  is  well  executed.  The  author  has  presented  the  difficul- 
ties of  the  system  which  he  assails,  in  a  clear  and  forcible  manner. 
The  radical  authorities  which  he  has  introduced,  greatly  enhance  the 
value  of  the  work.  Those  who  are  so  fond  of  exhibiting  the  difficulties 
of  Calvinism,  will  here  find  room  for  the  trial  of  their  skill  in  settling 
the  difficulties  of  their  own  system.  The  work  is  cheerfully  recom- 
mended to  the  patronage  of  an  intelligent  Christian  public." 

From  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Baird,  Editor  of  the  Pittsburgh  Christian  Herald. 
"  It  was  wise  to  carry  the  war  into  the  territory  of  the  assailants, 
and  this  Mr.  Annan  has  done  with  ability  and  success." 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

From  a  Review  in  the  Presbyterian. 
"  It  is  a  work  full  of  merit,  from  its  rational  exhibition  of  what  may 
be  called  theological  absurdities — a  luminous  exposure  of  the  absurd- 
ities of  the  Arminian  system.  The  style,  from  its  original  method,  is 
agreeable.  It  includes  also  an  able  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  Calvin 
and  others.     To  all  who  can  obtain  the  book,  we  say — Read." 

From  a  Review  in  the  Christian  Herald. 
"  A  successful  development  of  the  difficulties  of  the  Arminian  system. 
I  know  of  no  volume  so  well  adapted  to  expose  the  weak  points  of 
Methodism.  The  style  is  popular  and  sprightly,  the  argument  pointed 
and  concise.  The  '  Difficulties  of  Arminian  Methodism '  are  strongly, 
fairly,  yet  succinctly  stated.  The  volume  is  convenient,  portable, 
neatly  executed  and  popularly  written.  It  is  therefore  well  adapted  to 
strengthen  Presbyterians  in  their  confidence  in  the  truth  of  their  own 
system,  and  guard  them  against  the  claims  of  arrogant  Arminians." 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER   I. 

PiOI 

Introductory. — Circumstances  which  call  for  the  work — Remarks 
upon  the  "  Objections  to  Calvinism,"     -----       11 

LETTER    II. 
Difficulties  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin — The 
confused,  incoherent  and  contradictory  statements  made  on  the 
subject,        -.--..----28 

LETTER   III. 

Same  subject,  continued — Relations  to  the  Atonement,  41 

LETTER   IV. 
Same   subject  concluded — State  and  Prospects  of  Infants — Free- 
dom of  the  Will,  56 

LETTER   V. 

Difficulties  on  the  subject  of  Foreknowledge — Predestination,  77 

LETTER  VI. 
Same  subject,  continued,         -------98 

LETTER   VII. 
Election — Reprobation,    -        -        -        -        -        -        -        -113 

LETTER   VIII. 
Same  subject,  continued,  ---.---     136 

LETTER  IX. 
Difficulties  on  the  subject  of  Atonement:  its  nature  and  extent,     152 

LETTER   X. 
Difficulties  in  connection  with  "  Falling  from  Grace,"         -        -     173 

LETTER   XI. 
Difficulties  on  the  subject  of  Justification   and   Imputed   Right- 
eousness, -         -         --         -_.--.  192 

(ix) 


CONTENTS. 
LETTER    XII. 


PACK 


Difficulties  in  reference  to  "Sinless  Perfection,"        -  204 

LETTER   XIII. 
Difficulties  upon  the  subject  of  Regeneration,  and  the  character- 
istics of  a  change  of  heart,  ----..     226 

LETTER   XIV. 
Difficulties  in  connection  -with  Camp  Meetings,        ...    242 

LETTER   XV. 

Difficulties  with  regard  to  Religious  Ordinances,  Abuses,  &c.      -    252 

LETTER   XVI. 
Difficulties  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Form  of  Government — its 
exclusive  and  anti-republican  character,        ....     261 

LETTER   XVII. 
Difficulties  in  relation  to  certain  Rights  of  Property,       -        -    273 

LETTER   XVIII. 
Difficulties  in  regard  to  the  powers  of  the  Preachers — they  fix  their 
own  salaries,  and  provide  for  their  payment,  ...    287 

LETTER   XIX. 
Are  the  Preachers'  Salaries  well  paid  ?-----    292 

LETTER  XX. 
Articles  and  Discipline — their  origin  and  prominent  features,        301 

APPENDIX   I. 
False  Quotations  exposed,         ---..._    314 

APPENDIX  II. 

The  Heathen  World — its  state  and  prospects,  -        -        -    331 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ARMINIANISM. 


LETTER    I. 

INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS. 

To  Bishop  Simpson  : 

Rev.  Sir — I  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  these 
Letters  to  you,  for  several  reasons  : 

1.  You  have  been  long  a  preacher,  and  for  a  time  were  one 
of  the  editors  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church,  and  are 
well  known  as  a  zealous  defender  of  its  faith. 

2.  Your  ministerial  brethren  have  elevated  you  to  a  posi- 
tion among  the  chief  functionaries  of  their  ecclesiastical  sys- 
tem, and  of  course  you  stand  upon  the  watch-tower  as  a 
prominent  guardian  of  its  administration. 

3.  In  a  formal  "  Introduction"  to  the  work  called  "  Ob- 
jections to  Calvinism,"  by  the  Rev.  R.  S.  Foster,  you  have 
given  your  indorsement  to  the  doctrinal  caricature  which  he 
calls  Calvinism.  Thus  you  say,  the  "argumentation  is 
strictly  logical,"  "  the  book  is  very  valuable,"  "  well  execu- 
ted," and  of  "  great  merit."  The  numerous  extracts  which 
appear  in  these  Letters,  will  furnish  appropriate  illustrations 
of  this  flattering  notice  from  your  pen.  Suffice  it  for  the 
present  to  say,  that  to  every  well  informed  Presbyterian,  it 
must  seem  marvelous,  that  you  should  employ  such  terms  in 
relation  to  such  a  production.  But  as  the  act  is  done,  and 
as  the  "Objections"  are  published  "for  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal church" — as  you  have  thus  embarked  your  character 
as  a  theologian  and  a  man  of  enlarged  views,  with  that  of 

(11) 


12  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

Mr.  Foster,  there  seems  to  be  a  propriety  in  directing  these 
Letters  to  you.  These  facts  will  also  explain  why,  in  refer- 
ring to  Mr.  Foster's  work,  I  couple  your  name  with  his — not 
only  because  you  have  indorsed  his  statements,  but  in  your 
"Introduction"  have  yourself  adopted  some  of  the  most 
offensive  and  injurious  of  them. 

To  illustrate  my  meaning:  in  speaking  of  "  the  subject  of 
Predestination,"  which  you  say  "  has  for  ages  engaged  the 
attention  of  theologians  and  philosophers" — you  state  "the 
questions  which  arise"  as  follows  :  "  Is  the  destiny  of  every 
human  being  unchangeably  determined  before  his  birth,  with- 
out reference  to  foreseen  conduct  ?  Has  the  mind  a  power  of 
choice  ?  Can  it  move  freely  within  certain  specified  limits  ? 
Will  the  nature  of  its  movements  and  choice  influence  its 
eternal  happiness?"  "These  questions,"  you  add,  "have 
in  some  form  exercised  the  highest  powers  of  the  human  in- 
tellect;" and  the  obvious  inference  which  you  wish  to  have 
made,  is  that  Calvinists  or  Predestinarians  hold  the  following 
positions,  viz.  that  "  the  eternal  destiny  of  every  man  is 
unchangeably  fixed  before  his  birth  without  reference  to  his 
foreseen  conduct"  or  character  as  righteous  or  wicked — that 
the  mind  has  no  power  of  choice — that  it  cannot  move  freely 
— that  the  nature  of  its  movements  and  choice  have  no  influ- 
ence on  its  eternal  happiness." 

Such  is  Predestination  !  Such,  according  to  Bishop  Simp- 
son, are  the  doctrines  held  and  taught  by  Presbyterians  and 
other  Calvinists.  And  the  book  which  repeats  and  reiterates 
these  impious  statements,  and  attempts  to  fix  them  down 
upon  Calvinistic  churches,  the  Bishop  indorses,  and  his  sect 
publishes  as  one  of  " great  merit!"  Let  the  reader  observe 
— Bishop  S.  does  not  affirm  merely  that  these  impieties  have, 
by  some  Anti-Calvinists  been  considered  as  legitimate  infer- 
ences from  the  doctrine  of  Predestination.  That  would  be 
bad  enough — but  he  goes  much  farther.  These  are  the 
questions  !     These  are  the  real  points  which  have  exercised 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  13 

and  divided  the  minds  of  "  theologians  and  philosophers." 
But  so  far  as  regards  the  Presbyterian  church,  we  need  hardly 
say  that  no  person  broaching  such  monstrous  sentiments, 
could  be  received  as  a  member  of  any  of  our  ecclesiastical 
bodies — and  if  Bishop  Simpson  will  undertake  to  prove  such 
charges  against  any  individual  minister  of  our  communion, 
we  pledge  our  word  that  he  shall  be  brought  to  trial,  and  if 
the  Bishop  shall  sustain  the  accusation,  that  the  guilty  one 
shall  be  forthwith  suspended  from  the  office. 

It  is  no  concern  of  ours,  even  though  you  could  prove  that 
u  the  Atheistical  school  of  philosophers,"  "  the  Jewish 
Essenes"  and  "  the  Mohammedans,"  held  the  doctrine  of 
Predestination,  as  you  state  it.  So  also  it  has  been  fashiona- 
ble for  Arminian  disputants  to  charge  Calvinism  with  being 
nearly  allied  to  Stoical  fate.  The  Greek  and  Roman  philos- 
ophers, called  Stoics,  are  admitted  by  even  Arminian  authors, 
to  have  been  the  greatest,  wisest  and  most  virtuous  of  all  the 
heathens ;  and  their  sayings  are  often  quoted  by  Arminians 
as  a  confirmation  of  some  of  the  most  important  truths  of 
Christianity ;  particularly  relating  to  the  unity  and  perfec- 
tion of  the  Godhead,  a  future  state,  the  duty  and  happiness 
of  mankind,  &c.  The  doctrine  of  Fate,  as  held  by  the  Stoics, 
was  in  some  respects  very  erroneous,  though  they  differed 
among  themselves.  And  if  any  of  them  taught  the  same 
doctrine  held  by  others  of  the  ancient  heathen — viz.  that 
Fate  was  a  power  which  overruled  and  controlled  both  men 
and  gods,  it  was  of  course  sheer  Atheism.  Even  Bishop 
Simpson  will  not  pretend  to  find  any  thing  of  this  sort  in 
Calvinism.  But  where  do  we  find  the  "  philosophers  and 
theologians"  of  ancient  and  modern  times,  whose  sympathies 
and  views  most  nearly  harmonized  with  those  of  modern  Ar- 
minians ?  We  find  them  among  the  followers  of  Epicurus, 
the  father  of  Atheism  and  licentiousness — among  the  Sad- 
ducees,  who  said  "  that  there  is  no  resurrection,  neither  angel, 
nor  spirit" — and  among  the  Mohammedans,  "  one  of  whose 
2 


14  DIFFICULTIES    OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

sects,  and  portions  of  other  sects,"  the  Bishop  admits,  "  held 
the  freedom  of  the  human  will,"  i.  e.  in  the  Arminian  sense 
of  freedom  !  And  last  but  not  least,  "  the  Jesuits,"  yes, 
"  the  Jesuits,  who  became  the  most  indefatigable  enemies 
of  the  Reformation,  *  *  *  were  the  advocates  of  (Ar- 
minian) free  will !"  Such  is  the  testimony  of  Bishop  S. 
himself !  Arminianism  has  great  cause  to  be  proud  of  her 
allies. 

In  such  volumes  as  the  one  which  you  have  so  profusely 
bepraised,  it  is  common  to  find  Calvinism  represented  as  "  a 
libel  upon  Deity,  profane,  scandalous,  a  system  of  blasphemy 
and  impiety."  But  if  this  be  true,  it  is  really  wonderful  that 
so  bad  a  tree  should  bear  such  "good  fruit."  From  the  par- 
tisan and  sectarian  verdict  of  such  men  as  Alexander  Camp- 
bell, of  Bethany,  and  such  preachers  as  Rev.  R.  S.  Foster 
(whom  you  indorse),  we  appeal  to  the  enlightened  judgment  of 
such  acknowledged  literary  tribunals  as  "the  British  Encyclo- 
pedia," which  contains  the  following,  not  written  by  a  Calvin- 
ist :  "  There  is  one  remark  which  we  think  ourselves  in  justice 
bound  to  make.  It  is  this — that  from  the  earliest  age  down 
to  our  own  days,  if  we  consider  the  character  of  the  ancient 
Stoics,  the  Jewish  Essenes,  the  modern  Calvinists  and  Janse- 
nists,  compared  with  that  of  their  antagonists,  the  Epicureans, 
the  Sadducees,  the  Arminians  and  the  Jesuits,  we  shall  find 
that  they  have  excelled,  in  no  small  degree,  in  the  practice  of 
the  most  rigid  and  respectable  virtues,  and  have  been  the 
highest  honor  to  their  own  age,  and  the  best  models 
for  imitation  to  every  succeeding  age."  Such  is  the  testimo- 
ny of  an  impartial  witness,  a  first-rate  scholar. 

Again  :  The  "  Edinburgh  Review,"  which  has  not  been 
suspected  of  a  leaning  toward  Calvinism,  says  :  "  Who  were 
the  first  formidable  opponents  of  this  doctrine  (predestina- 
tion) in  the  Church  of  Rome  ?  The  Jesuits,  the  contrivers  of 
courtly  casuistry,  and  the  founders  of  lax  morality.  Who,  in 
the  same  church,   inclined  to  the  theology  of  Augustine  ? 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  15 

The  Jansenists,  the  teachers  and  the  models  of  austere 
morals." 

Again  :  "  It  is  a  notorious  and  undeniable  fact."  remarks 
the  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  "  that  wherever  the  doctrine 
and  discipline  of  Calvin  have  existed  and  been  allowed  to 
operate,  the  people  have  been  remarkable  for  an  enlightened 
piety  and  the  strictness  of  their  moral  conduct." 

To  the  same  effect,  hear  one  of  your  own  most  distinguish- 
ed ministers,  Rev.  Dr.  Elliott,  for  several  years  editor  of 
the  "  Western  Christian  Advocate  :"  —  "  The  Presbyterians 
of  every  class,"  remarks  Dr.  E.  "  were  prominent  and  even 
foremost,  in  achieving  the  liberties  of  the  United  States. 
They  have  been  all  along  the  leading  supporters  of  constitu- 
tion and  law,  and  good  order.  They  have  been  the  pioneers 
of  learning  and  sound  knowledge  from  the  highest  to  the  low- 
est grade,  and  are  now  its  principal  supporters.  The  cause 
of  morals  and  good  order  has  always  found  them  the  FIRST 
TO  aid,  and  among  the  last  to  retire  from  its  support." 

"  The  Presbyterians,"  adds  Dr.  E.  "  are  not  confounded 
and  never  will  be,  so  long  as  they  adhere  to  the  Bible  and  to 
the  promotion  of  truth  and  righteousness,  as  they  have  al- 
ways done  with  more  or  less  fidelity."  "  Many  thousands  of 
precious  souls  are  annually  brought  to  a  saving  knowledge  of 
Christ  by  their  instrumentality."  Will  Bishop  Simpson  ven- 
ture to  affirm  that  these  are  the  lawful  results  of  a  system  of 
impious  and  licentious  dogmas,  such  as  he  ascribes  to  Calvin- 
ists  ?  Did  Dr.  Elliott  regard  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the 
light  in  which  she  is  depicted  by  Mr.  Foster  ?  As  well  inquire 
whether  "  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns  and  figs  of  thistles." 
As  well  band  with  the  infidel  and  deny  the  truth  of  the  inspired 
maxim,  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 

Such  then  are  some  of  the  benign  "  fruits"  of  a  system  of 
doctrine,  the  character  of  which  is  drawn  in  your  leading 
tracts  and  other  publications  as  follows:  —  "It  makes  f all 
preaching  vain ;'  '  it  directly  tends  to  destroy  that  holiness, 


16  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

which  is  the  end  of  all  the  ordinances  of  God ;'  it  '  directly 
tends  to  destroy  our  zeal  for  good  works ;'  it  has  '  also  a 
direct  and  manifest  tendency  to  overthrow  the  whole  Chris- 
tian revelation ;'  it  represents  our  Saviour  '  as  a  hypocrite,  a 
deceiver  of  the  people,  a  man  void  of  common  sincerity ;'  it 
'  destroys  all  God's  attributes  at  once :  it  overturns  both  his 
justice,  mercy  and  truth :  yea,  it  represents  the  most  holy 
God  as  worse  than  the  devil,  as  both  more  false,  more  cruel 
and  more  unjust,'  as  'an  omnipresent,  almighty  tyrant.' 
'  This  is  the  blasphemy  clearly  contained  in  the  horrible  de- 
cree of  predestination.'  " 

"  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,"  said  our  blessed  Lord,  "  and 
tlie  truth  shall  make  you  free."  Commence  the  inquiry  at 
any  point  you  please.  Go  back  to  the  days  of  the  celebrated 
Augustine  of  the  fourth  century.  To  him  Mosheiin  ascribes 
"  the  glory  of  having  suppressed  Pelagianism  in  its  very 
birth."  All  acknowledge  him  to  have  been  a  Predestinarian 
of  a  high  order.  Did  he  hold  "  that  the  good  and  the  bad 
actions  of  men  were  from  eternity  fixed  by  an  invincible  (or 
natural)  necessity  ?"  No,  he  explicitly  rejected,  like  modern 
Calvinists,  such  an  impious  dogma !  Bishop  S.  cannot  be 
ignorant  of  the  history  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  who 
in  the  retired  fastnesses  of  the  Alps,  preserved  the  truth  for  so 
many  agea  safe  from  the  corruptions  of  Rome.  Yet  they  were 
Predestinarians.  So  were  the  leading  Reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century — as  the  creeds  which  they  prepared  abundantly 
testify.  Contrast,  too,  the  Arminianism  and  morals  of  Laud 
and  his  semi-popish  clergy,  and  of  Claverhouse  and  his  dragoons 
— with  "  the  austere  morality  and  the  fear  of  God"  which 
pervaded  all  ranks  of  the  Covenanters,  and  also  of  the  army 
of  Cromwell — as  Macaulay  assures  us.  In  that  singular  camp, 
the  historian  tells  us,  "  no  oath  was  heard,  no  drunkenness 
or  gambling  was  seen,  *  *  *  the  property  of  the  peace- 
able citizen  and  the  honor  of  woman  were  held  sacred,"  &c. 
These  were  the  fruits  of  Calvinism  !     And  the  lives  of  such 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  17 

moderns  as  Thomas  Scott,  Legh  Richmond,  Bunyan,  Ed- 
ward*, Whitefield,  and  a  host  of  other  Calvinists,  all  testify- 
that  "a  fountain  that  sends  forth  such  streams  of  purity- 
must  be  a  pure  fountain."  Even  your  own  "  Quarterly  Re- 
view," in  a  very  unfair  and  unfriendly  notice  of  certain 
"Lives  of  Calvin,"  admits  that  at  Geneva  "  his  practical  dis- 
cipline was  of  the  severest  cast."  And  one  of  the  proofs  is, 
"  dancing  and  other  amusements  were  strictly  prohibited."* 
Yet  this  same  Quarterly,  when  it  wishes  to  glorify  a  certain 
Arminian  preacher,  speaks  of  "  his  opposition  to  dancing"  in 
a  very  commendatory  tone  !f  "  Opposition  to  dancing"  is 
good  in  an  Arminian  preacher,  but  hardly  endurable  in  John 
Calvin  !  Thus  leaks  out  that  harsh,  intolerant,  exclusive 
sectarism  which  lives  and  breathes  throughout  your  church. 
This  it  is  which  prompts  the  extravagant  eulogy  of  a  certain 
Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  who,  as  we  are  told  by  your  highest  authori- 
ties, near  the  close  of  the  last  century,  abandoned  "  the  scat- 
tered population  of  Virginia,"  "  a  country  then  very  inade- 
quately supplied  with  the  ordinances  of  religion" — for  what 
purpose  ?  why,  to  carry  the  (Methodist)  gospel  to  New  Eng- 
land, "  which  had  always,"  as  your  Quarterly  admits,  "been 
supplied  with  abundance  of  religious  teachers,"  but  where 
there  were  no  Methodists  !  Such  is  the  Apostolic  zeal  of 
pure  Arminianism !  No  wonder  that  the  same  Quarterly 
elsewhere  affirms,  "that  the  spirit  of  sect,  a  spirit  of  early  in- 
trusion, of  facile  growth  and  of  late  eradication,  has  without 
question  been  par  too  prevalent  in  our  (Methodist)  com- 
munion."J  Jesse  Lee,  in  his  benevolent  mission  to  convert 
the  adherents  of  the  theology  of  Jonathan  Edwards,  Pwight, 
Brainard  and  Payson,  never  uttered  a  more  palpable  truth 
than  this  of  your  "  Quarterly  !"  No,  not  even  when  at  the 
commencement  of  his  "  momentous  message  to  New  Eng- 
land," as  your  historian  Stevens  tells  us,§  "  he  pronounced  the 

*  For  October,  1850,  p.  584.  %  For  April,  1850,  p.  188. 

f  For  January,  1850,  p.  67.  §  Page  41. 

2* 


18  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

remonstrance  of  Methodism  against  such  Puritan  doctrines  as 
1  infant  damnation!"'  Whether  the  spirit  of  Christ,  or  "  the 
spirit  of  sect/'  is  the  reigning  impulse  in  such  movements  as 
this,  let  enlightened  Christianity  decide.  The  morals  of  the 
thing  are  patent  to  every  discerning  eye. 

In  claiming  "  the  Lutheran  church"  as  "  strictly  agreeing 
with  the  Arminian  view  of  Predestination/'  Bishop  Simpson 
is  not  more  successful.  No  Presbyterian  would  object  to  the 
following  statements  from  Professor  Schinucker's  "  Popular 
Theology  :"  "  The  purposes  or  intentions  of  God  are  of  two 
kinds;  either  causative,  which  refer  to  his  own  intended  ac- 
tions :  or  permissive,  relating  to  those  actions  which  he  fore- 
sees that  his  creatures  will  perform,  and  which  he  resolves  not 
to  prevent."  "  These  purposes  of  God,  either  causative  or  per- 
missive, do  extend  to  all  things."  "What  God  thus  intend- 
ed (or  purposed)  in  eternity,  he  actually  executes  in  time." 
"  The  Divine  providence,  i.  e.  the  execution  of  God's  eter- 
nal purposes  or  intentions,  extends  to  all  things."  * 
This,  of  course,  includes  sin.  No  Presbyterian  could  ask  a 
clearer  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  his  Catechism  —  "  the 
decrees  of  God  are  his  eternal  purpose,  whereby  for  his  own 
glory,  he  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  Again  : 
"  This  sin  (of  our  first  parents)  God  was  pleased,  according 
to  his  wise  and  holy  counsel,  to  permit,  having  purposed  to 
order  it  to  his  own  glory. "f  In  like  manner,  Dr.  John 
Owen,  a  Calvinist  of  the  period  of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly, and  one  of  the  greatest  authorities  and  advocates  of  Pre- 
destination :  "  The  decree  of  reprobation  is  the  eternal  pur- 
pose of  God  to  suffer  (or  permit)  many  to  sin,  to  leave  them 
in  their  sin,  and  not  giving  them  to  Christ,  to  punish  them 
for  their  sin. "J  And  the  Catechism :  "  Our  first  parents, 
being  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  fell  from  the  estate 
wherein  they  were  created,  by  sinning  against  God."  Q.  13. 
Yet  this  is  the  scheme  of  doctrine  which  Bishop  Simpson 

*  Popular  Theology,  p.  95.         f  Confession,  p.  30.         J  Vol.  5,  p.  14. 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  19 

tolls  the  public,  denies  "to  the  mind  a  power  of  choice" — de- 
nies "  that  the  nature  of  its  choice  influences  the  soul's  eter- 
nal happiness  !  I" 

Neither  will  any  sound  Presbyterian  object  to  Dr. 
Schmucker's  views  when  he  says — "  The  decrees  of  God  rela- 
tive to  the  future  destiny  of  men,  were  formed  in  view,  that 
is,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  conduct  of  men,  *  *  *  as  is 
manifest  from  the  absolute  omniscience  of  God."  "These 
decrees,"  he  adds,  "  were  formed  in  view  (with  a  full  know- 
ledge) of  men's  voluntary  agency."  So  far  as  regards  those 
who  finally  perish,  our  Confession  expressly  says,  they  are 
"  passed  by  and  ordained  to  wrath  for  their  sin" — and,  of 
course,  it  must  have  been  "in  view,  or  with  full  knowledge 
of  their  conduct,"  as  Dr.  Schmucker  well  expresses  the  truth. 
In  regard  to  those  who  shall  be  saved,  Dr.  Schmucker  says, 
"  the  decree  of  predestination  to  eternal  life,  is  based  on  the 
foreseen  voluntary  conduct  of  the  individuals."  This  expres- 
sion— "a  decree  based  on  voluntary  conduct" — the  Calvinist 
would  not  employ  in  reference  to  the  finally  saved.  Yet  per- 
haps even  here,  the  difference  is  rather  verbal  than  real ;  for 
Dr.  S.  adds  :  "  Our  salvation  is  not  of  works,  but  of  grace. 
Yes,  humble  Christian  !  Thy  works  shall  follow  thee,  not  as 
a  ground  of  justification,  or  as  satisfaction  to  the  demands  of 
the  violated  law ;  for  Christ  and  his  merits  are  the  only 
basis  OF  OUR  HOPE,  the  only  satisfaction  for  sin.  *  *  * 
But  the  works  of  the  believer  shall  be  the  measure  of  his  fu- 
ture gracious  reward ;"  i.  e.  "  we  shall  be  rewarded  accord- 
ing to  our  works."*  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  Dr.  S. 
admits  the  true  and  only  scriptural  "ground"  on  which 
"  eternal  life"  is  based.  Of  course,  "  the  decree"  to  bestow 
salvation  agrees  with  the  truth  of  the  case,  %.  e.  it  is  founded 
on  the  "  only  basis  of  our  hope,"  in  "  Christ  and  his  merits;" 
not  on  "  foreseen  voluntary  conduct."  This  agrees  with  Cal- 
vinism, and  the  difference  on  this  point  seems  to  be  merely 
*  Popular  Theology,  pp.  100,  108. 


20  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

verbal,  Hence  there  appears  no  very  strong  family  likeness 
between  the  Lutheran  theology  and  the  system  of  Episcopal 
Methodism.  Besides,  Professor  S.  affirms  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  "  produces  faith"  —  "  that  what  he  does  in  time,  he 
eternally  intended  or  purposed  to  do" — which  is  the  doctrine 
of  Paul,  viz.  "  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to 
salvation,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of 
the  truth."  2  Thess.  2  :  13. 

I  anticipate  the  following  objection  to  much  that  is  said  in 
these  Letters  :  "  The  system  here  expounded  is  not  the  Cal- 
vinism of  its  original  teacher.  Surely  John  Calvin  was  a  Cal- 
vinist."     I  reply : 

1.  The  Presbyterian  church  has  never  held  herself  re- 
sponsible for  some  of  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  illustrious 
Calvin.  It  is  true  her  "  Board  of  Publication"  have  issued 
"the  Institutes."  But  mark  !  It  is  with  several  express  qual- 
ifications. "  Considering  the  circumstances  in  ichich  they 
were  written,"  they  say,  "  the  Institutes  form  an  invaluable 
body  of  divinity."  "  Yet  some  of  the  expressions  of  Calvin 
on  the  subject  of  Reprobation  may  be  regarded  as  too  un- 
qualified, and  we  can  no  further  indorse  them  than  as  they 
are  incorporated  in  the  Presbyterian  Confession."  "  And  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  some  of  the  doctrines  therein  main- 
tained, have  been  more  luminously  set  forth  in  modern 
times."  Here  there  is  an  express  disavowal  of  some  of  Cal- 
vin's sentiments  in  regard  to  Reprobation. 

2.  In  the  book  of  Mr.  Poster,  which  you  and  your  church 
have  indorsed,  great  injustice  is  done  to  Presb3'terians.  You 
cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  familiar  distinction  of  Supralapsa- 
rian  and  Sublapsarian  among  those  who  are  in  common 
called  Calvinists.  This  distinction  had  its  origin  in  a 
difference  of  views  in  regard  to  the  Divine  purposes,  and 
the  doctrine  of  election.  Calvin,  Beza,  Witsius,  and  some 
others,  were  most  probably  Supralapsarians.  The  Presbyte- 
rian church,  on  the  contrary,  are  to  a  man   Sublapsarian. 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  21 

To  charge  upon  Dr.  Rice  and  other  Presbyterians,  as  you  have 
done,  the  ultra  Calvinism  of  the  Supralapsarians,  is  about 
as  fair  as  though  we  should  hold  you  responsible  for  the  low 
Arminianism  of  Whitby  and  Taylor  of  Norwich  !  These 
men  boastod  of  their  Arminianism  ;  but  we  should  be  sorry 
to  suppose  that  your  church  is  prepared  to  acknowledge  any 
affinity  with  their  gross  errors.  And  in  reference  to  what  is 
now  called  Arminianism  in  this  country,  it  was  well  remarked 
by  the  late  Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover,  "that  Arminius 
himself  was  no  Arm  in  inn."* 

3.  Similar  injustice  is  done  to  our  church,  when  in  "the 
Objections  to  Calvinism,"  you  group  together  detached  para- 
graphs and  sentences  from  high  Supralapsarian  Calvinists, 
combined  with  fragments  torn  from  the  writings  of  Hill, 
Chalmers,  Edwards  and  others.  How  easy  in  this  way  to 
convict  Paul  of  denying  the  necessity  of  repentance ;  for  he 
says,  "  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance  !" 
How  obvious  that  he  advocated  licentiousness ;  for  he  says, 
"I  thank  God  that  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin!"  And  the 
Psalmist  can  in  this  way  be  shown  to  have  been  an  Atheist; 
for,  "  there  is  no  God  !"  Ps.  14. 

To  prove  the  correctness  of  this  representation,  we  cite 
one  or  two  examples.  The  first  is  a  quotation  on  page  23  of 
"  the  Objections  to  Calvinism,"  from  the  Institutes,  vol.  ii. 
p.  171.  "  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  confess  with  Augustine,  that 
the  will  of  God  is  the  necessity  of  things,  and  that  what  he 
has  willed  will  necessarily  come  to  pass."  But  did  not  Mr. 
Foster  perceive  that  this  was  not  the  end  of  the  sentence  ? 
Calvin  adds,  in  explanation  of  the  term  "necessity,"  "as  those 
things  are  really  about  to  happen  which  he  has  foreseen." 
And  ten  lines  farther  down  he  says  :  "  Their  perdition  depends 
on  the  Divine  predestination  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  cause 
and  matter  of  it  are  from  themselves."  Again,  six  lines  far- 
ther :  "  Man  falls  according  to  the  appointment  of  Divine 
*  Biblical  Repository,  April,  1831. 


22  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

Providence ;  but  he  falls  by  his  own  fault" — "  by  bis  own 
wickedness,  *  *  *  which  is  the  evident  cause  of  con- 
demnation ;"  *  *  *  "  the  ground  of  it  (his  misery)  he 
has  derived  from  himself  not  from  God."  Such  is  a  spe- 
cimen of  your  demonstrative  proofs  that  Calvinists  make 
"God  the  originator  and  cause  of  sin" — "  that  God  decreed 
all  the  sins  of  all  men" — and  "  that  the  decree  and  thing  de- 
creed stand  related  as  cause  and  effect."*  Such  is  a 
specimen  of  Bishop  Simpson's  "  strict  logic."  Thus  Mr. 
Foster  and  he  have  made  "  this  doctrine  (Calvinism)  to 
vanish  with  its  foundations,  which  (they  say,)  have  been 
demonstrated  to  be  false."f 

Another  illustration  of  these  Arminian  a  demonstrations." 
You  refer  (p.  26)  to  the  Institutes,  vol.  i.  p.  194,  as  follows  : 
"  It  should  be  considered  as  indubitably  certain  that  all  the 
revolutions  visible  in  the  world  proceed  from  the  secret  exer- 
tion of  Divine  power.  What  God  decrees  must  necessarily 
come  to  pass."  Thus  ends  your  extract.  But  this  is  not 
the  close  of  Calvin's  sentence ;  for  he  instantly  adds,  "  yet 
it  is  not  by  absolute  or  natural  necessity."  He  then  cites 
"the  familiar  example"  of  the  "bones  of  Christ,"  which 
were  capable  of  "  being  broken,"  "  yet  that  they  should  be 
broken  was  impossible ;"  because  the  Scripture  must  cer- 
tainly be  fulfilled,  "  a  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  broken." 
It  seems  that  prophecy  gives  rise  to  necessity  as  understood 
by  Calvin. |  Such  is  another  of  Bishop  Simf>son's  "  strictly 
logical"  demonstrations,  that  according  to  Calvinism,  "  God 
causes  men  to  rob,  murder,  blaspheme,  &c.  !" 

Without  multiplying  these  humiliating  examples  of  unfair 
quotation,  we  only  add  the  closing  sentence  of  the  Bishop's 
"Introduction:"  "We  doubt  not,"  he  says,  "that  many, 
after  perusing  these  pages  ("  Objections  to  Calvinism"),  will 
fully  acquiesce  with  Calvin,  in  terming,  as  he  did,  the  decree 

*  Objections,  &c.  pp.  31,  32.  -f  Ibid,  p.  198. 

X  For  other  illustrations  of  his  meaning,  see  Appendix  to  this  volume. 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  23 

of  Predestination  a  '  iiorrible  decree.'  "  But  that  this 
statement  in  regard  to  Calvin's  meaning  is  contrary  to  truth, 
is  obvious  for  several  reasons  : 

(1.)  Calvin  never  represented  the  Divine  decree  as  "hor- 
rible" in  the  common  acceptation  of  that  term.  Hence, 
when  Mr.  Foster  refers  to  the  same  sentiment,  on  page  70  of 
the  "  Objections,"  he  has  it  as  follows  :  "  It  is  an  awful  de- 
cree, I  must  confess."  Thus  we  have  Foster  versus  Simpson, 
preacher  against  bishop  !  Which  of  them  is  the  more  cor- 
rect, the  public  must  decide.  Every  tyro  knows  that  the 
Latin  term  horribile  often  means  "awful,"  as  Mr.  F.  gives  it. 

(2.)  Mr.  Foster's  translation  is  that  of  Allen,  which  is 
generally  received  as  reliable.  But  the  Bishop  follows  "Wes- 
ley and  other  partisan  controvertists,  who  "  have  no  greater 
joy"  than  to  heap  abuse  upon  Calvin  ! 

(3.)  The  distinguished  Dr.  Henry,  of  Berlin,  in  his  cele- 
brated "  Life  and  Times  of  Calvin,"  translates  horribile  de- 
cretum — "  terror-moving  decree,"  and  says  the  passage  "  does 
honor  to  his  (Calvin's)  feelings."  He  also  quotes  a  French 
author  (Ancillon,  Melanges  Critiques,  p.  37,)  as  affirming 
that  instead  of  "  describing  God's  decrees  as  horrible,  Calvin 
simply  meant  that  we  ought  to  tremble  at  contemplating  this 
mystery."  And  he  adds,  "  so  he  (Calvin)  himself  expresses 
it  in  the  French  version  of  the  Institutes."  Henry  also  re- 
fers to  Rivet  as  "  saying  the  same  thing." 

(4.)  And  to  crown  all  this  evidence  against  Bishop  Simp- 
son, let  it  be  remembered  that  it  is  a  question  of  fact.  Did 
Calvin  really  intend  by  the  phrase,  "  horribile  decretum," 
to  reproach  Predestination,  or  the  doctrine  of  Divine  decrees^ 
as  a  "  horrible"  doctrine,  implying  the  ideas  conveyed  by  the 
terms  shocking,  hideous,  revolting,  odious  ?  Let  Calvin  an- 
swer for  himself.  Thus  Book  3,  chap.  xxi.  sec.  1 :  "  We 
shall  never  be  clearly  convinced  as  we  ought  to  be,  that  our 
salvation  flows  from  the  fountain  of  God's  free  mercy,  till  we 
are  acquainted  with  his  eternal  election,  which  illustrates  the 


24  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

grace  of  God,"  &c.  "  Ignorance  of  this  principle  evidently 
detracts  from  the  Divine  glory,  and  diminishes  real  humility." 
Again  he  speaks  of  Predestination  as  "  the  inmost  recesses  of 
Divine  wisdom,"  and  as  "that  sublimity  of  wisdom  which 
God  would  have  us  to  adore,  and  not  to  comprehend,  to  pro- 
mote our  admiration  of  his  glory."  "  He  determined  thus, 
because  he  foresaw  it  would  tend  to  the  just  illustration  of 
the  glory  of  his  name."  To  say  that  Calvin  represented  the 
decree  of  God  as  "  horrible,"  is  contrary  to  these  uniform 
declarations,  is  to  represent  him  as  falling  under  his  own 
solemn  rebuke,  Book  3,  chap.  xxi.  sec.  4,  "  whoever  endeav- 
ors to  raise  prejudices  against  the  doctrine  of  Predestination, 
openly  reproaches  God,"  &c.  In  the  light  of  these  and  many 
other  passages,  is  it  not  wonderful  that  Bishop  Simpson 
should  revive  this  stale  and  ridiculous  story  about  the  "  hor- 
rible decree ;"  and  which  has  been  long  since  exploded  ? 
Even  John  Wesley  admits  that  Calvin  was  "a  wise,  pious 
man."  But  if  so,  how  could  he  have  reproached  his  Maker 
as  revealing  a  doctrine  which  is  "  horrible  ?"  A  doctrine, 
too,  which  he  himself  held  and  taught  as  scriptural ! 

To  follow  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson  in  this  way  through 
all  their  professed  quotations,  and  expose  them  in  detail, 
would  of  course  require  a  large  volume.  If  a  certain  heathen 
god  could  be  known  by  his  foot,  so  may  Arminianism  be 
tested  by  these  specimens  of  its  "logical  argumentation." 
Besides,  many  of  the  professed  extracts  are  shielded  from 
investigation  by  defective  reference.  Thus  to  a  number  of 
the  most  objectionable  we  find  appended,  "Hill,"  "Calvin," 
"Witsius,"  "  Zanchius,"  &c.  But  Calvin's  works  are  con- 
tained in  twelve  large  folio  volumes,  and  those  of  Witsius  in 
nearly  the  same  number !  In  the  same  manner  they  refer  to 
"Presbyterian  Tracts,"  which  are  bound  in  ten  volumes,  con- 
taining more  than  four  thousand  pages,  and  to  "  Dick," 
"  Edwards,"  "  Chalmers,"  and  others.  No  rational  person 
will  expect  us  to  look  through  some  fifty  or  a  hundred  large 
volumes  on  such  an  errand  as  this ! 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  25 

We  arc  told  in  these  "Objections  to  Calvinism,"  "that  the 
book  had  its  origin  in  the  fact  that  the  M.  E.  church  had 
been  long  and  grievously  assailed  by  one  of  the  organs"  of 
the  Presbyterian  church ;  and  "  by  an  accredited  champion 
(Dr.  Rice),  at  a  time  when  peace  and  Christian  union  had 
long  existed."  Thus  "  truth  and  religion  required  it !"  Of 
course  Dr.  Rice's  "  unprovoked  intermeddling "  rendered  it 
necessary  (for  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson)  "  to  uncover  the 
revolting  and  shameful  deformities"  of  Presbyterianism.*  But 
in  reply,  Dr.  Rice  assures  us  that  "  the  unprovoked  intermed- 
dling" in  the  particular  case  referred  to,  came  from  the 
Methodist  organ,  the  "  Western  Christian  Advocate,"  which 
published  an  article  on  '  Church  Membership,'  containing 
incorrect  and  offensive  statements  respecting  the  Presbyterian 
church."  Here  was  the  "  intermeddling,"  and  it  was  all  on 
the  Arminian  side  ! 

Again  :  Without  referring  to  these  more  recent  assaults 
from  that  quarter,  we  have  had  in  our  possession  for  more 
than  twenty-five  years,  the  books  and  tracts  published  by  the 
highest  authorities  of  your  church  on  this  subject,  widely 
circulated,  injurious  to  the  moral  character  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian ministry,  and  designed  to  bring  disgrace  upon  her 
doctrines  and  cherished  usages.  From  one  of  these  publica- 
tions^ we  make  the  following  extracts.  In  speaking  of  the 
Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians,  they  say  :  "  For  several 
years  the  public  have  been  entertained  with  pitiful  complaints 
against  the  Arminians  and  Methodists,  for  misrepresenting  their 
doctrine,  and  charging  them  with  principles  of  fatality,  repro- 
bation, &c.  all  which  they  have  gravely  affected  to  deny.  And 
that  they  may  lull  the  people  into  favor,  they  have  dwelt  ivith 
seeming  earnestness  on  the  general  invitations  of  the  gospel, 
free  agency  in  man,  and  universal  atonement  of  Christ ;  hut 
with  all  their  ingenuity  they  have  not  been  able  to  conceal  from 

*  Soe  "  Objections,"  pp.  13,  138,  ifcc. 
f  Soo  tract,  "  Duplicity  Exposed." 


26  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  I. 

the  well  informed,  the  cloven  foot  of  their  peculiar  tenets,  un- 
conditional election  and  reprobation." — pp.  1,  2. 

Again  :  "  Notwithstanding  the  pitiful  whining  about  their 
being  misrepresented,  they  are  as  high-toned  Predestinarians 
at  this  day  as  ever  they  were."  "  We  say,"  continues  the 
tract,  "  they  believe  the  doctrine  of  eternal  and  unchangeable 
decrees,  of  unconditional  election  and  reprobation,  of  the  uni- 
versal agency  of  God,  by  which  he  worketh  all  things  in  all 
men,  even  wickedness  in  the  wicked" — "  because  he  chooses  on 
the  whole  that  they  should  go  on  in  sin,  and  thereby  give 
him  a  plausible  pretext  for  damning  them  in  the  flames  of 
hell  forever."  "  We  do  not  mean  to  blame  any  person  for 
believing  the  above  stated  doctrine,  if  they  cannot  conscien- 
tiously disbelieve  it ;  but  we  do  and  must  blame  them,  when 
they  dissemble  their  belief  by  sometimes  saying  they  do  not 
believe  what  we  know  they  indiistriously  teach." — pp.  8,  9. 

Again  they  say  :  "The  object  of  this  tract  is  not  to  con- 
trovert or  disprove  the  horrid  sentiments  it  discloses,  but 
simply  to  demonstrate  that  such  sentiments  are  held  and 
propagated,  while  many  who  affect  to  disavow  them,  are  en- 
deavoring to  suit  them  to  the  popular  taste  by  exhibiting 
them  in  a  disguising  dress.  We  blame  not  people  who  honestly 
believe,  but  we  blame  those  who  disbelieve  what  they  openly 
profess  and  teach." — pp.  9,  10. 

The  substance  of  these  quotations  may  be  collected  at  one 
view  from  such  passages  as  the  following  :  "  To  dissemble  with 
the  public,  by  artifice  conceal  our  real  sentiments,  professing 
one  thing  while  we  industriously  circulate,  another ;"  "  that 
they  may  lull  the  people  into  favor,  they  have  dwelt  with  seem- 
ing earnestness"  —  "dissemble  their  belief"  —  "disbelieving 
what  they  profess  and  teach"  &c.  &c. 

It  would  be  easy  to  fill  pages  with  similar  deliverances 
extracted  from  your  standard  publications.  These  declara- 
tions will  serve  to  qualify  such  brotherly  expressions  as  the 
following,  on  pages  15;  188,  of  your  "  Objections  :  "  "  Toward 


Let.  I.  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  27 

the  Presbyterian  church  I  have  cherished  sentiments  of  the 
profoundest  attachment  from  my  early  boyhood.  *  *  These 
sentiments  remain  to  this  hour."  "I  must  be  allowed  to 
cherish  love  for  your  church."  "  Would  that  you  had  been 
content  to  enjoy  peace,  and  left  your  neighbors  to  pursue  their 
own  vocation,"  &c. 

Such  then  is  the  neighborly  love  of  these  Arminian  breth- 
ren. If  their  statements  were  generally  believed,  the  effect 
must  be  to  degrade  us  from  our  ministerial  standing,  as 
unworthy  of  countenance  among  all  honorable  and  righteous 
men.  Not  content  with  endeavoring  to  show  that  our  system 
of  doctrine  legitimately  leads  to  certain  impious  consequences, 
they  publish  us  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  as  guilty  of  deliberate 
and  designed  dishonesty,  because  we  are  not  willing  to  think 
with  them  in  this  matter,  but  refuse  to  adopt  a  thousand 
impieties  of  the  Arminian  brain. 

"  If  these  charges  are  not  true,"  said  a  preacher  to  some 
Presbyterians,  "  why  are  they  not  contradicted  and  refuted  V 
\Ye  have  been  driven,  therefore,  to  the  unpleasant  alternative, 
either  of  standing  before  the  public  as  confounded  by  a  sense 
of  guilt,  our  forbearance  construed  to  our  disadvantage,  and 
our  love  of  peace  made  a  pretext  for  more  violent  assault ;  or 
of  taking  up  the  pen  to  assert  and  prove  our  innocence,  and 
to  direct  the  course  of  public  justice,  so  as  to  strike  those  who 
are  really  guilty.  The  interests  of  truth  will  not  permit  us 
to  be  silent.  To  ourselves,  our  children,  and  the  church  of 
God,  we  owe  it,  to  let  the  truth  be  known.  And  if  in  de- 
fending the  precious  cause  of  our  Master,  and  vindicating  our 
good  name,  we  are  compelled  to  publish  some  things  which 
seem  to  bear  heavily  upon  those  whom  we  wish  to  call  Chris- 
tians, we  appeal  to  the  candor  of  every  reader,  to  say,  ichere 
must  rest  the  responsibility. 


28  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  II. 


LETTER   II. 

ORIGINAL,    OR   BIRTH    SIN.— ARMINIAN   CONTRADICTIONS 
AND  INCOHERENCES. 

Rev.  Sir — In  order  fully  to  comprehend  the  nature  and 
excellence  of  the  gospel  method  of  salvation,  it  is  obviously 
proper,  in  the  first  place,  to  examine  minutely  the  moral  dis- 
ease of  which  it  is  the  Divinely  appointed  remedy.  I  ask, 
therefore,  your  close  attention,  whilst  we  proceed  to  test  by 
Scripture  and  reason,  the  views  of  Arminians  upon  the  great 
cardinal  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  or  as  your  Discipline  terms 
it,  «  birth  sin." 

Among  the  Articles  of  Religion  published  for  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  church,  and  (along  with  the  Discipline,)  recom- 
mended to  all  their  people,  "  next  to  the  Word  of  God,"  the 
7th  is  in  the  following  terms : 

"  Original  Sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  Adam  (as 
the  Pelagians  vainly  talk),  but  it  is  the  corruption  of  the 
nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  off- 
spring of  Adam,  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness,  and  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  and 
that  continually." 

This  article,  as  expounded  by  one  of  your  leading  authori- 
ties, describes  "the  lapsed  condition  into  which  the  first  act 
of  disobedience  plunged  the  first  pair  and  their  whole  posteri- 
ty," and  "the  death  threatened  to  Adam"  and  "his  whole  pos- 
terity," is  admitted  to  be  "the  fullness  of  death,"  or  •' death 
temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal."*  The  article  is  essentially 
Calvinistic  so  far  as  it  goes,  though  defective  in  some  particu- 
lars. But  the  great  matter  of  surprise  is,  that  such  correct 
and  scriptural  views  of  man's  fall  and  its  far-reaching  results, 
have  been  incorporated  in  a  system  otherwise  Arminian. 
That  such  an  attempt  to  mingle  "iron  and  clay  "  in  the  same 
*  Watson's  Institutes,  chap.  18,  pp.  220,  241. 


Let.  II.  ORIGINAL    SIN.  29 

doctrinal  structure,  involves  you  in  the  strangest  incoheren- 
ces and  contradictions,  we  purpose  to  show  as  we  proceed. 
Indeed  the  utter  impossibility  of  reconciling  these  sound 
Calvinistic  views  of  "  birth  sin  "  with  other  essential  features 
of  the  Arininian  scheme,  was  felt  by  its  original  advocates. 
"  These  early  defenders  of  that  scheme,  came  out  boldly  and 
fearlessly  with  their  doctrine."  Whatever  else  they  were, 
they  were  men  of  discernment,  sufficient  at  least  to  perceive 
the  absolute  incongruity  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  Cal- 
vinism and  Arminianism,  and  the  utter  futility  of  the  attempt 
to  interweave  light  with  darkness,  as  your  system  does.  Such 
logical  reasoners  as  Borraeus,  Corvinus,  Venator,  and  the 
older  remonstrants,  could  never  be  brought  to  undertake  so 
fruitless  a  labor.  Take  a  few  examples  :  "  It  is  perversely 
said  that  Original  Sin  makes  any  one  guilty  of  death." 
"That  which  we  have  by  birth  ("birth  sin")  can  be  no  evil 
of  sin,  because  to  be  born  is  plainly  involuntary."  "Original 
Sin  is  neither  a  sin  properly  so  called,  which  should  make 
the  posterity  of  Adam  guilty  of  God's  wrath ;  nor  yet  is  it  a 
punishment  of  any  sin  on  them."  "It  is  against  equity  that 
one  should  be  accounted  guilty  of  a  sin  that  is  not  his  own, 
*  *  *  who  in  regard  of  his  own  will  is  truly  innocent." 
"Infants  are  simply  in  that  estate  in  which  Adam  was  before 
his  fall."  "Adam  sinned  in  his  own  proper  person  only,  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  God  should  impute  that  sin  unto 
infants."*  Such  are  a  few  of  the  doctrinal  extremes  to  which 
the  early  Arminians  logically  pushed  their  system.  If  Bishop 
S.  and  his  brethren  of  the  present  day,  profess  to  repudiate 
such  results,  we  should  be  sorry  to  put  a  harsh  construction 
upon  their  conduct.  It  is  not  the  prerogative  of  any  man  to 
judge  the  motives  of  his  neighbor.  We  do  not  allege,  there- 
fore, "  that  the  old  forms  of  the  Arminian  system  are  so 
repulsive  the  people  will  not  receive  them,   *  *  and  modern 

*  See  Dr.  John  Owen's  ■'  Display  of  Armiuianisin,"  where  the  quotations 
axe  given  in  the  original  Latin. 

3* 


30  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  II. 

Methodists  have  assumed  new  positions,  not  only  to  conceal 
their  doctrine,  but  if  possible  to  defend  it."*  Far  be  it  from 
us  to  accuse  our  Arminian  brethren  with  "  disingenuousness 
and  cowardice,  if  not  with  downright  duplicity,  for  thus  shun- 
ning and  covering  up  the  more  repulsive  features  of  their 
system."*  Their  error,  we  would  fain  hope,  belongs  rather 
to  the  head  than  the  heart.  "  If  any  man,"  remarked  the 
eloquent  Baptist,  Robert  Hall,  "  says  he  is  an  Arminian,  the 
inference  is  that  he  is  not  a  good  logician." 

The  great  inconsistency  of  this  attempt  to  patch  Arminian- 
ism  with  shreds  of  Calvinistic  doctrine,  has  been  also  felt  by 
some  of  the  more  modern  anti-Calvinists.  Whitby,  who  is 
one  of  Mr.  Foster's  authorities  against  us,  speaks  contemptu- 
ously of  "  God's  imaginary  compact  with  Adam,  that  if  he 
prevaricated,  he  should  procure  not  only  to  himself  but  to  all 
his  posterity,  the  death  both  of  the  body  and  soul."  "  This," 
he  says,  "  manifestly  contradicts  the  express  word  of  God."f 
And  he  talks  of  "  the  forged  compact  between  God  and 
Adam,  to  justify  this  imputation  of  his  sin  to  his  posterity." 
So  also  Dr.  John  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  who  is  favorably  noticed 
and  quoted  by  Dr.  Clarke,  in  some  of  his  expositions  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  maintains  that  the  death  which  entered 
by  sin  of  "one  man"  (Rom.  5  :  12),  is  no  more  than  that  which 
we  all  die  when  the  body  returns  to  dust  •"  and  he  argues  at 
length  to  prove  that  death  and  affliction  come  on  Adam's  poster- 
ity, not  as  a  punishment  or  calamity,  but  as  a  benefit,  especially 
as  connected  with  the  resurrection. J  But  how  the  "  resur- 
rection to  damnation,"  which  comes  to  the  wicked,  can  be  re- 
garded as  a  benefit  or  "  advantage  furnished  through  grace 
in  Christ,"  is  not  easily  understood.     Both  Taylor  and  Whit- 

*  The  language  hero  used  is  quoted  from  Dr.  Fisk's  "  Discourse  on  Pre- 
destination," published  by  the  General  Conferonco,  through  their  Book  Con- 
corn.     It  is  directed  against  Calvinists.     pp.  34,  35,  36 

f  Discourses  on  the  Five  Points,  pp.  7,  8. 

J  For  the  extracts  which  prove  these  statements,  see  Edwards  on  Original 
Sin,  ch.  1,  4. 


Let.  II.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  31 

by  stand  high  among  the  assailants  of  Calvinism ;  and  the 
"  Discourses  on  the  Five  Points"  have  often  furnished  wea- 
pons to  the  enemies  of  that  system.  They  are  sad  illustra- 
tions of  the  facility  with  which  consistent  logical  Arminian- 
ism  finds  "  a  lower  deep"  in  blank  Pelagianism,  leading  to 
such  results  as  "  that  the  consequences,  guilt  and  corruption 
of  Adam's  sin  were  confined  to  his  own  person — that  new- 
born infants  are  in  the  same  situation  with  Adam  before  the 
fall,"  &c.  How  close  to  this  dark  gulf  of  error,  the  leading 
Methodist  brethren  verge  in  their  attempts  to  harmonize  their 
conflicting  sentiments,  will  appear  in  the  sequel.  With  such 
facts  before  us,  we  proceed  to  examine  the  Difficulties  of  the 
Arminian  scheme. 

I.  The  Difficulties  of  Arminian  Methodism  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. — The  con- 
fused, incoherent,  and  contradictory  Statements 
made  upon  this  subject. 

1.  "  The  corruption  of  nature"  taught  in  the  article  above 
quoted,  into  which  Adam's  sin  "  plunged  all  his  posterity," 
and  by  which  "  man  is  inclined  to  evil  and  that  continu- 
ally," is  manifestly  the  fountain  whence  flows  all  actual  sin, 
the  root  of  all  bitterness,  an  evil  of  fearful  magnitude,  a  curse 
of  tremendous  extent.  Who  then  is  the  guilty  author  of  this 
dread  calamity,  by  which  corruption,  and  misery,  and  death, 
are  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation  ?  Is  it  the 
infant  or  the  parent  ?  Must  we  trace  it  back  to  Adam,  the 
primitive  ancestor  of  tho  race ;  or  must  we  impute  it  to  the 
Creator  himself?  In  answer  to  these  questions,  the  Method- 
ist Standard  of  doctrine  says  not  a  word ;  and  the  members 
and  ministers  are  left  to  believe  and  teach,  upon  this  subject, 
whatever  is  right  in  their  own  eyes.  Men  may  adopt  their 
Articles  and  Discipline,  and  yet  maintain  that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin,  the  originating  cause  of  that  "  corruption  of 
nature"  by  which  "  man  is  inclined  to  evil  aud  that  continu- 


32  .  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  II. 

oily,"  and  thus  the  author  of  all  sin.  This,  their  religious 
teachers  may  hold  and  inculcate,  and  yet,  so  far  as  appears, 
be  good  Methodists.  The  whole  subject  is  submitted  to  the 
freak,  or  faucy,  or  frenzy,  of  each  individual,  whether  preacher 
or  ordinary  member. 

Now,  it  is  well  known  to  be  a  favorite  topic  of  declamation, 
among  these  opposers  of  Presbyterianism,  that  our  system 
leads  inevitably  to  the  adoption  of  the  forementioned  mon- 
strous doctrine  of  the  origin  of  sin.  Long,  and  loud,  and  oft 
repeated,  are  their  asseverations  to  this  effect ;  and  they  do 
not  hesitate,  as  we  have  seen,  to  charge  us,  who  reject  the 
thought  with  abhorrence,  as  guilty  of  a  want  of  candor,  or 
something  worse.  But  what  says  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  upon  the  subject  of  the  author  of 
sin  ?  "  The  sinfulness  thereof  (viz.  of  sinful  actions)  pro- 
ceedeth  only  from  the  creature,  and  not  from  God,  who  being 
most  holy  and  righteous,  neither  is  nor  can  be  the  author  or 
approver  of  sin."  Ch.  5.  sec.  4.  And  this,  be  it  remembered, 
is  a  declaration,  to  which  all  Presbyterian  ministers  and  elders, 
at  their  ordination,  solemnly  give  their  assent  and  approbation. 
A  man  may  be  a  good  preacher  of  Methodism — he  will  resist 
no  regulation  among  men,  nor  violate  any  ministerial  oath, 
who  holds  and  teaches  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin;  but  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Presbyterian  church  for  ever 
forbid  to  such  a  person  an  entrance  into  her  ministry  or  eld- 
ership, under  the  penalty  of  a  conscience  perjured  before 
earth  and  heaven. 

Again  :  the  "  corruption  of  nature  "  taught  by  the  Article 
is  necessary  and  unavoidable.  Man  brings  it  into  the  world 
with  him;  and  he  can  no  more  avoid  being  the  child  of  sin- 
ful parents,  and  of  course,  the  child  of  a  corruption  by  which 
"he  is  inclined  to  continual  evil,"  than  he  can  determine  the 
time  and  place  of  his  birth.  He  is  therefore  necessarily  and 
unavoidably,  "  without  any  preceding  fault  or  offense  of  his," 
"very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  inclined  to 


Let.  II.  ORIGINAL  SIN.  33 

evil  and  that  continually."  But  Dr.  "W.  Fisk,  speaking  as 
the  organ  of  the  General  Conference,  tells  us,  "  that  if  God 
holds  men  responsible  for  what  is  unavoidable,  nothing  more 
could  be  said  of  the  most  merciless  tyrant."  (Disc,  on  Predes. 
p.  13.)  It  follows,  therefore,  that  though  "man  is  inclined 
to  evil  and  that  continually,"  yet  he  is  not  "  responsible"  for 
this  wickedness,  because  it  is  unavoidable ;  in  other  words, 
"  Original  Sin"  is  no  sin,  but  a  very  innocent,  harmless  thing, 
which  none  but  a  "  merciless  tyrant"  would  ever  consider 
deserving  of  punishment ! 

Nevertheless,  Dr.  Fisk  further  assures  us  (p.  30,)  that  "all 
depravity,  whether  derived  or  contracted,  is  damning  in  its 
nature."  Here  we  are  back  on  the  old  ground  :  Original  Sin 
is  unavoidable,  therefore  it  is  no  sin ;  but  still  it  is  "  dam- 
ning in  its  nature  !"  How  is  this  ?  The  Doctor  will  tell  us  : 
"  Guilt  is  not  imputed,  until  by  a  voluntary  rejection  of  the 
gospel  remedy,  man  makes  the  depravity  of  his  nature  the 
object  of  his  choice."  "  By  a  voluntary  rejection  of  the  gos- 
pel remedy."  But,  Rev.  Doctor,  does  not  your  seventh  Ar- 
ticle teach  "a  corruption  of  nature,  by  which  man  is  inclined 
to  evil  and  that  continually  ?"  And  if  he  be  inclined  to  con- 
tinual evil,  then  is  he  inclined  to  this  very  evil  of  rejecting 
the  gospel  remedy.  It  is  idle,  therefore,  on  your  own  princi- 
ples, to  talk  of  a  voluntary  (or  sinful)  rejection  of  the  gospel 
remedy,  when  man  is  necessarily  and  unavoidably  inclined 
to  reject  it.  Of  course,  it  can  be  no  sin  to  reject  it;  and  God 
would  be  a  "  merciless  tyrant"  to  "impute  guilt"  for  rejecting 
the  remedy.  How  then  can  a  depravity  which  none  can  avoid, 
which  none  but  "merciless  tyranny"  could  regard  as  deserv- 
ing of  punishment,  be  said  to  be  "  damning  in  its  nature  ?" 

In  reply  to  this  reasoning,  a  writer  in  defense  of  Dr.  Fisk, 
whilst  admitting  that  man  is  by  "  nature  inclined  to  evil  con- 
tinually," asserting,  too,  that  this  "  destroys  the  freedom  of 
his  will,"  and  that  it  would  be  mockery  for  the  Divine  Being 
to  set  before  him  life  and  death,  and  invite  him  to  choose 


34  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  II. 

life,  "  when  he  was  morally  incapable  of  such  a  choice ;"  yet 
thinks  he  relieves  the  subject  of  the  difficulty,  by  stating  that 
"  Dr.  F.  assumes  man  as  graciously  assisted  to  make  a  volun- 
tary choice."  In  other  words,  man  is  by  birth  the  heir  of  a 
depravity  which  "  unavoidably  inclines  him  to  continual 
evil."  It  follows,  therefore,  according  to  Dr.  F.  that  he  has 
no  power  of  voluntary  choice,  and  is  not  a  free  moral  agent, 
until  "graciously  assisted,"  and  made  capable  of  voluntary 
choice;  and  thus,  the  Dr.  continues,  "through  the  grace  of 
the  gospel,  all  are  born  free  from  condemnation."  p.  30. 
Which  is  about  the  same  as  to  say,  that  man  is  enabled  "  by 
grace"  to  escape  a  condemnation  which,  being  previously 
unavoidable,  it  would  have  been  merciless  tyranny  to  execute. 
A  wondrous  act  of  grace,  truly,  to  assist  the  sinner  to  avoid 
a  punishment  which  none  but  a  tyrant  could  inflict !  A 
strange  idea  of  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  that  it  comes  in  to 
render  men  capable  of  sinning,  deserving  of  punishment  for 
their  sin,  and  liable  to  a  "  condemnation"  which,  but  for  this 
grace,  a  righteous  God  could  not  justly  execute  upon  any  de- 
scendant of  the  apostate  pair  ! 

2.  The  article  quoted  above,  as  expounded  by  leading  Ar- 
minian  authors,  makes  God  the  author  of  all  sin,  except  that 
which  produced  the  fall.     Let  us  look  at  this  subject : 

The  providential  arrangement,  agreeably  to  which  "  the 
first  sin  plunged  all  Adam's  posterity  in  corruption  and 
death,"  as  Watson  abundantly  proves,  was  obviously  not  the 
natural  constitution  which  now  prevails  between  the  father 
and  child.  No  such  dreadful  and  wide-spread  consequences 
now  attend  the  parental  relation.  Of  course,  the  original 
constitution  which  secured  such  fatal  results  must  have  been 
peculiar,  extraordinary,  supernatural ;  in  other  words,  it  was 
a  special  "covenant"  made  and  appointed  by  the  God  of 
providence,  for  the  special  circumstances  of  our  first  parents. 
This  is  not  denied  by  Watson,  who  quotes  approvingly  the 
following  statements  of  Arminius  : 


Let.  II.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  35 

"The  tenor  of  the  covenant  into  which  God  entered  with 
our  first  parents  was  this — that  if  they  continued  in  the  fa- 
vor and  grace  of  God  by  the  observance  of  that  precept  (viz. 
'  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it/  &c.)  and  others,  the  gifts  which  had 
been  conferred  upon  them  should  be  transmitted  to  their  pos- 
terity ;*  *  *  *  but  that  if  they  should  render  themselves 
unworthy  through  disobedience,  their  posterity  should  like- 
wise be  deprived  of  those  favors ;  *  *  *  hence  it  fol- 
lowed, that  all  men  who  were  to  be  naturally  propagated  from 
them,  have  become  obnoxious  to  death  temporal  and  eternal, 
and  have  been  destitute  of  that  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  of 
original  righteousness.  This  punishment  is  usually  called  a 
privation  of  the  image  of  God  and  original  sin."* 

This  is  clear  and  explicit.  Will  Bishop  Simpson  and 
other  Arminians  look  at  it  for  a  few  moments.  Here  was 
a  "  Covenant,"  or  Divine  Constitution,  made  with  our  first 
parents.  Of  course,  God  was  its  Author.  It  was  extraor- 
dinary and  supernatural,  and  the  results  which  were  to  follow 
in  the  course  of  Providence,  were  of  Divine  origin  and 
appointment.  In  virtue  of  this  Divine  ordination,  "  fallen 
man,  including  all  his  posterity,"  were  plunged  into  a  state 
of  corruption  and  misery,  became,  "  inclined  to  evil,  and  that 
continually,"  inherit  a  corrupt  nature  or  spiritual  death,  and 
"  are  born  liable  not  only  to  bodily  death,  a  part  of  the  penalty, 
but  that  is  sufficient  to  show,"  says  Watson,  "  that  they  arc  born 
under  the  whole  malediction. "f  Such,  Bishop  S.  is  the 
arrangement  under  which,  by  Divine  appointment,  all  men  are 
born!  Such,  "  the  punishment"  which  God  appoints  for  all 
men,  including  infants  of  every  age  !  In  the  language  of  your 
favorite,  Foster,  we  ask,  "  How  came  these  miserable  crea- 
tures in  their  condition  of  sin  and  wretchedness  ?  You  must 
answer,  They  were  put  there  by  the  decree  or  appointment 
of   God."J      And  this  "whole  malediction,"  viz.   "death — 

*  Institutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  78.  f  Watson's  Inst.  vol.  ii.  p.  58. 

%  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  88. 


36  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  II. 

temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal,"  (Watson,  chap.  18) — this 
" punishment  of  the  privation  of  the  image  of  God"  (Ar- 
minius  and  Watson,)  is  necessary  and  unavoidable  by  any 
child  of  Adam  !  If  the  worthy  Bishop  and  his  favorite 
Foster,  will  open  almost  any  page  of  their  "  Objections  to 
Calvinism,"  their  eye  will  quickly  light  upon  an  epithet  of 
sufficient  horror  for  a  case  of  this  sort !  So  true  is  it,  that 
our  Arminian  brethren  have  fallen  into  the  pit  which  they 
had  dug  for  their  Calvinistic  neighbors  !  Thus  they  repre- 
sent the  all-merciful  Creator  as  the  author  of  all  the  most 
malignant  forms  of  sin,  and  of  the  dreadful  sufferings  which 
flow  from  it. 

3.  Leaving  Bishop  S.  and  his  Arminian  brethren  to  choose 
between  the  sentiment  of  Dr.  Fisk,  viz.  that,  "  through  the 
grace  of  the  Gospel  all  are  born  free  from  condemnation," 
and  the  opposite  sentiment  of  Watson,  viz.  that  "all  are 
born  under  the  whole  malediction," — both  which  contradictory 
statements  are  published  in  the  accredited  writings  of  the 
General  Conference;  let  us  look  a  little  further  into  this 
curious  scheme  of  Arminianism. 

"  The  whole  malediction,"  "  the  punishment  under  which 
all  are  born,"  as  Arminius  and  Watson  affirm,  is  represented 
as  falling  upon  creatures  who  are  perfectly  guiltless !  To 
substantiate  this  statement,  let  Bishop  S.  open  Mr.  Foster's 
book,  which  he  so  highly  applauds  :  "  The  doctrine,"  (of  Cal- 
vinism,) he  says,  "  is,  that  mankind  were  viewed  as  fallen 
in  Adam,  and  all  of  them  under  condemnation  and  deserving 
of  death."  "But,  if  it  be  said  the  wrong  is  not  in  their 
remaining  unregenerate,  but  in  their  being  so  in  the  first 
instance,  I  reply,  neither  are  they  to  blame  for  this,  because 
it  was  entirely  without  their  consent.  They  were  born  corrupt, 
and  so  cannot  be  guilty  for  this."  *  But  if  these  conclusions 
be  just,  these  Arminian  Doctors  should  immediately  propose 

*  Objections  to  Calvinism,  pp.  90,  166.  Much  moro  of  the  same  sort  is 
found  in  the  book. 


Let.  II.  ORIGINAL  SIN.  37 

an  alteration  in  the  title  of  their  seventh  Article.  Instead 
of  "  Original  or  Birth  Sin"  it  should  read,  "  Original  or 
Birth  Misfortune!"  There  is  obviously  no  sin  in  ine  case. 
In  like  manner,  the  "  Methodist  Magazine/'*  in  reviewing 
this  work  in  a  former  edition,  remarks  as  follows  :  "  To  us 
it  is  as  manifest  as  the  meridian  light,  that  to  suffer  the  tem- 
poral consequences  (viz.  of  "  the  original  offense,")  is  one 
thing,  and  to  lie  under  the  guilt  of  the  first  offense  so  as  to 
be  liable  to  eternal  punishment,  is  quite  another."  Again, 
"the  offspring  of  our  original  ancestors  may  be  unavoidably 
involved  in  the  consequences  of  their  original  offense,  without 
being  consequently  and  necessarily  involved  in  the  guilt  of 
their  original  act."  Here  it  is  asserted  that  all  the  offspring 
of  Adam  are  involved  in  "  the  temporal  consequences  "  of 
his  first  sin,  viz.  "  death — temporal  and  spiritual,"  as  Watson 
states  them — but  without  lying  under  the  guilt  of  that  or 
any  other  offense.  In  other  words,  all  men  inherit,  unavoid- 
ably, original  or  birth  sin — are  "  inclined  to  evil,  and  that 
continually,"  and  suffer  death;  but,  still,  this  " punishment" 
falls  upon  those  who  are  not  "  involved  in  guilt,"  i.  e.  though 
guiltless  of  sin,  either  original  or  actual,  they  are  compelled 
to  suffer  such  dreadful  "  punishment !  "  But,  what  is  guilt  ? 
It  has  been  well  defined  to  be  "  the  state  of  any  being  justly 
charged  with  crime."  It  follows  that  these  great  and  una- 
voidable evils,  viz.  "  death — temporal  and  spiritual,"  are 
inflicted  as  a  "punishment"  upon  persons  ''justly  chargeable 
with  no  crime,"  for  they  are  without  guilt.  And  all  these 
forms  of  "the  malediction "  are  "transmitted  to  Adam's 
posterity,"  as  the  necessary  and  unavoidable  fruits  of  that 
original  "  covenant,"  of  which  God  was  the  author,  as  both 
Arminius  and  Watson  affirm.  Thus,  this  Arminian  cove- 
nant inflicts  dreadful  penalties  upon  the  guiltless — even  upon 
helpless  infants.  And  they  are  unavoidable  as  the  time  and 
place  of  their  birth. 

*  For  July,  1S39. 
4 


30  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  II. 

But  while  the  "  Methodist  Magazine  "  teaches  that  "  the 
offspring  of  Adam  are  unavoidably  involved  in  the  temporal 
consequences  of  the  first  sin,  without  being  involved  in  its 
guilt,"  as  just  stated,  the  reviewer  shrinks  with  horror 
from  the  thought  that  "  one  man  or  a  single  child  of  our 
fallen  race  "  "  is  liable  to  eternal  punishment  on  its  account." 
And  to  say  that  one  such  person  "  ever  finally  perished, 
merely  through  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,"  he  denounces 
as  "  a  blasphemous  imputation  on  the  character  of  God." 
But,  here  is  a  confounding  of  two  things  essentially  distinct 
— to  be  "liable  to  eternal  punishment,"  is  one  thing,  and  to 
"finally  perish"  is  an  entirely  different  thing.  The  liability 
"merely  through  Adam's  sin,"  Calvinists  maintain  ;  but  "the 
final  perdition  "  of  any  soul  for  the  same  cause  alone,  is  no  part 
of  our  creed.  Besides,  the  reviewer  here  comes  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  ablest  standard  writer  in  the  Arminian 
ranks.  Mr.  Watson  reasons  conclusively  as  follows  :  "  The 
justice  of  this  (viz.  "  eternal  death  from  the  federal  charac- 
ter of  Adam,")  is  objected  to;  but  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that 
if  the  making  the  descendants  of  Adam  liable  to  eternal 
death  because  of  his  offense  be  unjust,  the  infliction  of  tem- 
poral death  is  so  also;  the  duration  of  the  punishment 
making  no  difference  in  the  simple  question  of  justice.  If 
punishment,"  he  adds,  "whether  of  loss  or  of  pain,  be  unjust, 
its  measure  and  duration  may  be  a  greater  or  less  injustice, 
but  it  is  unjust  in  every  degree."*  This  reasoning  is  per- 
fectly conclusive,  and  places  the  reviewer  in  a  bad  pre- 
dicament. If  "  liability  to  eternal  death "  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin,  be  unjtist,  so,  reasons  Watson,  must  be  "  the 
infliction  of  temporal  death  on  the  same  account."  Now, 
as  the  reviewer  maintains  the  latter,  i.  e.  "  the  infliction 
of  temporal  death,"  he  must  necessarily  admit  the  former, 
viz.  "  liability  to  eternal  death."  "  The  fact,"  says  Watson, 
"  of  infanta  being  born  liable  to  temporal  death;  a  part  of 
*  Institutes,  vol.  ii.  pp.  55,  56. 


Let.  II.  ORIGINAL  SIN.  39 

the  penalty,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  they  are  born  under 
the  whole  malediction,"  viz.  "death  —  temporal,  spiritual 
aud  eternal."  Thus,  as  he  well  reasons,  by  admitting  the 
justice  of  temporal  death,  "  we  are  in  precisely  the  same 
difficulty  as  when  the  legal  result  is  extended  farther,"  viz. 
so  as  to  include  "  liability  to  eternal  death,"  Yet,  of  these 
same  children  of  Adam,  Bishop  S.  and  Mr.  Foster  say : 
"  They  were  born  corrupt,  and  so  cannot  be  guilty  for  this." 
So  that  "  the  whole  malediction "  rests  upon  the  guiltless! 
Such  are  some  of  the  confused,  incoherent  and  contradictory 
statements  put  forth  by  these  Arminian  brethren.  Such,  a 
few  of  the  curious  logical  results  of  this  attempt  to  interline 
the  Arminian  scheme  with  scraps  of  Calvinism !  The  best 
method  of  escape  from  this  entanglement,  is  to  say,  with 
some  earlier  Arminians,  "  That  which  we  have  by  birth, 
("  birth  sin,")  can  be  no  evil  of  sin,"  &c.  "  Infants  are  sim- 
ply in  that  estate  in  which  Adam  was  before  the  fall."  Or, 
take  the  Pelagian  ground,  "Adam's  sin  hurt  no  one  but  him- 
self !  "  "  And  death  is  threatened  as  a  benefit  to  mankind  ! " 
It  is  needless  to  enlarge  further  upon  the  proofs  of  this  sin- 
gular feature  of  the  Arminian  scheme,  viz.  punishment 
without  guilt.  We  must  not  omit,  however,  one  other  ex- 
tract, which  we  take  from  Dr.  Fisk,  the  ablest  American 
writer  on  the  subject,  as  follows  :  "  Guilt  is  not  imputed 
("  to  man  born  depraved,")  until,  by  a  voluntary  rejection 
of  the  gospel  remedy,  he  makes  the  depravity  of  his 
nature  the  object  of  his  choice."  *  But,  if  this  be  true ; 
if  "guilt  is  not  imputed"  to  children  until  they  be- 
come old  enough  to  choose  or  refuse  "  the  gospel  rem- 
edy," why  do  they  suffer  the  penalty  of  "  temporal 
death?"  Why  are  they  subject  to  the  "privation  of  the 
image  of  God,"  as  Arminius  assures  us,  and  which  he  terms 
•L  a  punishment?"     If  "guilt  is  not  imputed  to  them,"  how 

*  "  Discourse  on   Predestination   and    Election,"  p.  30,   Moth.   Tract, 
No.  131. 


40  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  II. 

can  they  be  "  born  under  the  whole  malediction,"  as  Watson 
affirms.  Did  David  teach  this  doctrine :  "  Behold  !  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me  ?  " 
Did  Paul  teach  that  men  are  born  guiltless  ?  Of  Christians 
of  his  day,  he  says  :  "  We  all  were,  by  nature,  children  of 
wrath,  even  as  others."  Yet,  according  to  the  Arminian 
scheme,  "guilt  was  not  imputed  to  them,"  though  they  were, 
"  by  nature,  children  of  wrath  ! "  Indeed,  as  Watson  most 
conclusively  reasons,  if  these  guiltless  children  may  suffer 
"  temporal  death,"  with  equal  certainty  may  they  suffer 
"  eternal  death  " — "  the  measure  or  duration  of  the  punish- 
ment may  be  a  greater  or  less  injustice,  but  it  is  unjust  (and 
of  course,  impossible  with  God,)  in  every  degree."  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  if  Arminians  taught  the  "  horrible  doc- 
trine of  infant  damnation,"  they  would  not  more  surely 
charge  the  Creator  with  injustice  than  with  their  present 
notions,  viz.  "  that  corruption,  misery  and  death  are  the  sad 
inheritance  of  infants,"  while  they  are  chargeable  only  with 
"sin  which  they  could  not  avoid/'  or,  rather,  "guilt  is  not 
imputed  to  them  at  all !  " 

Thus,  by  the  plain  showing  of  its  own  most  zealous 
defenders,  the  Arminian  scheme  is  convicted  of  this  great 
inconsistency,  viz. "punishment  without  guilt;"  i.e.  "pun- 
ishment without  any  just  liability  to  suffer  !  "  Other  strange 
features  of  the  scheme  we  reserve  for  future  Letters. 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  41 


LETTER    III. 

ORIGINAL   OR  BIRTH   SIN— ITS  RELATIONS  TO  TIIE  ATONE- 
MENT— MEN  BECOME  SINNERS  ONLY  BY  FREE  GRACE. 

Rev.  Sir  —  We  propose  now  to  examine  with  some  care 
the  logical  relations  of  "  Original  or  Birth  Sin "  to  the 
Atonement.  The  Scriptures  abundantly  teach  that  "  Christ 
died  for  our  sins" — "died  the  just  for  the  unjust,  to  bring 
us  to  God."  But  it  is  demonstrable  on  Arminian  principles, 
that  the  Redeemer  came  into  the  world,  not  "to  save  men 
from  sin,"  but  rather  to  put  them  into  a  capacity  of  sinning, 
since  it  is  only  in  consequence  of  his  death  and  the  grace 
revealed  in  it,  that  guilt  becomes  chargeable  upon  any  indi- 
vidual of  the  race,  except  our  first  parents.  In  proof  of 
this  position,  observe  the  following  :  1.  All  the  posterity 
of  Adam  are  born  with  "  a  corruption  of  nature,"  whereby 
they  are  "  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continually."  2.  These 
sore  evils  are  as  necessary  and  unavoidable  as  the  event  of 
natural  birth.  3.  No  person  is  "to  blame  for  a  (corrupt) 
nature  which  was  forced  upon  him ;  to  which  he  never  con- 
sented, and  which  he  never  could  avoid.  His  first  parent 
may  be  to  blame,  but  he  cannot  be  resjmnsible."  "  No  being 
in  the  universe  can  censure  him ; "  *  since  it  would  be  to 
blame  and  punish  a  person  chargeable  only  with  necessary 
and  unavoidable  sin,  destitute  of  freedom  of  will,  and  "mor- 
ally incapable  of  a  good  choice."  4.  But  through  the  grace 
abounding  in  the  Atonement,  "  the  destructive  effects  of 
derived  depravity  are  counteracted."  f  Man's  "freedom  of 
will"  is  restored;  he  is  "graciously  assisted  to  make  a  vol- 
untary (i.  e.  a  sinful)  choice,"  and  he  thus  becomes  respon- 
sible and  blame-worthy.  But  if  no  remedy — no  grace — had 
been  provided,  man's  condition   as  a  fallen  creature  "would 

*  Foster's  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  121. 
f  Dr.  Fisk,  p.  30. 
4* 


42  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  III. 

have  been  his  misfortune,  not  his  fault,  and  he  would  have 
been  no  more  to  blame  than /or  having  red  hair."  * 

Now,  if  these  things  are  so,  then  it  is  plain  that,  inde- 
pendently of  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  grace  of  the  gospel, 
we  could  never  have  been  chargeable  with  sin ;  and  of  course 
Christ  did  not  die  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  any  of  the  fallen 
race,  except  our  first  parents,  since,  but  for  his  death  and  the 
grace  accompanying  it,  no  others  could  have  sinned,  or  at 
least,  their  sins  being  unavoidable,  they  would  not  have  been 
"responsible"  for  them.  But  if  this  is  so,  it  will  follow 
that  the  " grace  of  the  gospel,"  instead  of  being  any  real 
favor  toward  mankind,  is  the  greatest  curse  that  could  ever 
befall  them.  If,  without  the  bestowment  of  grace,  men 
could  not  have  been  held  "responsible"  for  their  conduct, 
they  would  have  remained  free  from  criminality;  the 
righteousness  of  God  could  never  have  suffered  them  to  be 
sent  to  hell;  and  his  goodness,  we  may  suppose,  would  have 
bestowed  upon  them  eternal  life.  But  now,  alas  !  in  conse- 
quence of  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  of  grace  being  given 
them  to  deliver  them  from  unavoidable  sin  and  "  merciless 
tyranny  " — now  they  are  all  exposed  to  inexcusable  blame 
and  endless  ruin  ! 

Again :  If  this  derived  depravity  be  necessary  and  una- 
voidable, where  was  the  " grace"  in  Christ's  dying  to 
"  counteract  its  destructive  effects  ?  "  If  we  must  suppose 
"  the  shedding  of  blood  "  in  some  way  necessary  to  save  man 
from  being  held  "  responsible  "  for  unavoidable  corruption  ; 
or  in  other  words,  to  save  him  from  "  merciless  tyranny."  it 
would  seem  rather  an  act  of  justice,  both  to  God  and  the 
creature.  The  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  oaves  it  to  himself 
to  DO  right.  To  say,  then,  that  "  through  the  grace  of 
the  gospel  all  are  born  free  from  a  condemnation  "  which 
none  but  a  tyrant  could  execute,  is  to  confound  all  distinc- 
tion between  those  rights  which  eternal  justice  exacts,  and 
*  Reply  to  Faii-child's  "  Great  Supper,"  p.  34. 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  43 

the  unmerited  favors  which  grace  freely  bestows.  It  is  in 
fact  to  resolve  the  whole  scheme  of  mercy  into  the  payment 
of  a  DEBT,  at  least,  so  far  as  it  respects  all  the  offspring  of 
Adam.  But  we  need  not  say  how  utterly  subversive  is  such 
a  view  of  the  first  principles  of  the  gospel,  which  is  contin- 
ually represented  as  the  blessed  fruit  of  the  most  distinguished 
love,  as  the  "unspeakable  gift"  of  pure,  unmerited  mercy. 
Thus  does  Dr.  Fisk's  great  argument  against  the  doctrine  of 
decrees  (whether  correctly  or  incorrectly  applied,  we  inquire 
not  now,)  recoil  upon  himself.  Like  him  of  old,  who  defied 
the  armies  of  Israel,  Arminianism  loses  its  head  by  the  stroke 
of  its  own  favorite  sword. 

That  these  are  legitimate  deductions  from  Arminian  pre- 
mises, is  obvious.  "  It  has  been  established,"  says  Watson, 
(vol.  ii.  p.  67,)  "  that  the  full  penalty  of  Adam's  offense 
passed  upon  his  posterity."  And  he  elsewhere  admits  that 
"  Paul  represents  all  men  under  condemnation,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  connection  with  the  first  Adam ; "  and, 
again,  that  "  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made, 
constituted,  accounted  and  dealt  with  as  sinners,  and  treated 
as  though  they  themselves  had  actually  sinned;"  p.  397,  54, 
55.  The  full  penalty  which  has  passed  upon  all  men  to 
their  condemnation,  he  represents  (p.  55,)  as  consisting  in 
three  things.  1.  "The  death  of  the  body."  2.  "Death 
spiritual" — "thus  it  is,  the  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,  and  desperately  wicked."  3.  "  A  third  consequence 
is,  eternal  death ;  "  or,  as  the  language  is  varied  on  page 
399,  "  a  conditional  liability  to  eternal  death."  Now,  it  will 
scarcely  be  denied  that  these  are  evils  of  the  most  awful  char- 
acter that  can  befall  mankind,  being  nothing  less  than  death 
temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal.  And  we  are  told  that  they  have 
passed  upon  men,  as  the  "  full  penalty,"  or  righteous  "  con- 
demnation "  of  Adam's  offense,  in  consequence  of  a  connec- 
tion with  him  which  they  could  not  escape,  if  they  were  born 
at  all.      Here,  then,  is  a  triple  curse,  including  death  tempo- 


44  DIFFICULTIES   OF  APtMINIANISM.  Let.  III. 

ral  and  spiritual,  and  a  liability  to  eternal  death,  which  no 
descendant  of  Adam  has  power  to  shun,  and  which  is  visited 
upon  every  child  of  his,  "  on  account  of  sin  "  which  is  abso- 
lutely "  unavoidable,"  in  consequence  of  his  connection  with 
his  first  parents.  We  leave  Dr.  Fisk  and  his  admirers  to 
inform  the  public,  whether  this  be  the  arrangement  of  a 
most  "  merciless  tyrant ;  "  or  whether,  in  their  zeal  against 
Predestination,  they  have  not  digged  a  ditch  and  fallen  into 
it  themselves. 

Again :  The  three-fold  penalty  which  has  passed  upon 
all  men  on  account  of  unavoidable  sin,  we  are  further  told  by 
Watson,  is  relieved  by  the  fact  that  "  all  are  born  under  a 
constitution  of  mercy,  which  actually  existed  before  their 
birth;"  vol.  ii.  p.  398.  "A  constitution  of  mercy!" 
Mercy  for  what,  and  for  whom  ?  Why,  for  men  who  are 
implicated  in  sin,  for  which,  L>r.  Fisk  says,  none  but  a  tyrant 
could  hold  them  " responsible,"  it  being  "unavoidable." 
We  submit  to  these  gentlemen  the  task  of  showing  the  infi- 
nite mercy  and  grace  of  the  plan  by  which  men  are  saved 
from  the  penalty  and  condemnation  of  the  Divine  law;  while 
at  the  same  time  they  assure  us,  that  to  leave  them  in  that 
state  would  be  an  act  of  high-hauded  injustice  and  "  tyran- 
ny." Truly,  grace  is  no  more  grace,  according  to  this 
scheme.  It  is  hardly  strict  justice,  or  the  payment  of  a 
moral  debt.  It  supposes  the  most  merciful  Grod  to  create 
men  under  an  arrangement  or  constitution  by  which  all  are 
plunged  into  an  abyss  of  unavoidable  sin  and  condemnation 
to  death  and  misery.  It  then  supposes  him  to  provide  a 
"constitution  of  mercy,"  by  which  only  some  are  saved; 
whereas,  if  they  had  been  only  left  to  themselves,  and  no 
mercy  and  grace  provided,  they  would  have  been  "inclined 
to  evil,  and  that  continually ; "  of  course  they  would  have 
"  had  no  freedom  of  will  left,"  and  could  not  have  been  held 
"responsible"  for  their  sins!  Thus,  all  men  would  have 
been   blameless   and   harmless,  without   rebuke,  and  justly 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL  SIN.  45 

exposed  to  no  misery,  either  in  this  world  or  the  world  to 
come. 

It  will  not  relieve  the  Armiuian  scheme,  to  say  with  Dr. 
Fisk  and  the  General  Conference,  that  Adam  was  our  "  fede- 
ral head,"  and  that  "  by  his  unneccssitated  sin,  he  and  in 
him  all  his  posterity  became  obnoxious  to  the  curse  of  the 
Divine  law."  *  This  is  true.  It  is  sound  Calvinism,  viz. 
that  "by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by 
sin ;  and  so  death  has  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  (or  in 
whom,  Adam)  all  have  sinned."  Rom.  5  :  12.  John  Wesley, 
too,  seemed,  at  least  at  times,  to  understand  this  subject : 
"  The  sufferings  of  all  mankind  (including  infants)  which  are 
entailed  upon  them  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  are  not  the  result  of 
mere  mercy  (as  Taylor  of  Norwich  taught)  but  of  justice  also. 
In  other  words,  they  have  in  them  the  nature  of  punishments, 
even  on  us  and  our  children.  Therefore,"  continues  Wes- 
ley, "  children  themselves  are  not  innocent  before  God.  They 
suffer ;  therefore  they  deserve  to  suffer."  f  But  what 
will  Bishop  Simpson  and  Mr.  Foster  say  to  this  ?  Their 
doctrine  is — "They  were  born  corrupt,  and  so  cannot  be 
guilt)/  for  this — they  remain  unregenerate,  and  are  not  to  blame 
for  this,  because  it  was  entirely  without  their  consent."  J 
Very  different  this  from  Wesley:  "  They  suffer  —  therefore 
they  deserve  to  suffer  I" 

The  great  cardinal  truth,  that  Adam  was  "  the  federal 
head  and  representative"  of  the  whole  race,  solves  the  mys- 
tery of  infant  guilt  and  suffering  in  the  Calvinistic  scheme. 
No  principle  of  government  is  more  universally  recognized 
and  approved  than  that  which  involves  millions,  especially 
women  and  children  who  have  no  voice  in  their  election,  in 
the  responsibilities  incurred  by  their  representatives;  as  in 
war,  and  other  heavy  liabilities  and   sore   calamities.     But 

*  Discourse  on  Predest.  p.  3 . . 

f  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  part  'i,  sec.  2. 

J  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  166. 


46  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  in. 

what  relief  will  the  representative  character  of  the  first  man 
bring  our  Arminian  brethren  ?  It  simply  enables  them  to 
remove  the  knotty  entanglement  a  little  farther  back.  It 
exhibits  the  God  of  infinite  mercy  as  constituting  a  federal 
relationship  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  in  virtue  of 
which  "  death  temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal,"  are  visited 
upon  them  as  the  "  full  penalty"  of  sin  which,  as  to  all  the 
descendants  of  the  first  pair,  was  absolutely  necessary  and  un- 
avoidable, and  for  which  they  are  "  no  more  responsible  than 
for  having  red  hair;"  or,  as  Bishop  S.  and  Mr.  Foster  express 
it,  "they  were  born  corrupt  and  so  cannot  be  guilty  for  this," 
&c.  Thus  the  "merciless  tyranny,"  which  they  so  earnestly 
denounce  and  charge  upon  Calvinism,  is  reduced  to  a  system. 
It  is  provided  for  by  a  Divine  "  covenant,"  as  Arminius  and 
Watson  term  it ;  it  is  executed  in  the  order  of  nature  and 
providence  originally  enstamped  upon  creation !  And  to 
crown  the  whole  scheme  of  contradiction,  "  a  constitution  of 
mercy"  is  introduced,  the  results  of  which  are,  to  make  the 
children  of  men  responsible  and  guilty,  and  justly  exposed  to 
the  curse;  and  thus  "the  grace  of  the  gospel"  proves  to  be 
a  far  greater  evil  than  the  original  calamity  !  If  there  had  been 
no  grace,  according  to  this  scheme,  there  could  have  been  no 
sin,  no  punishment,  no  suffering,  no  sorrow  among  the  poster- 
ity of  Adam  !  Of  course,  there  was  every  reason  of  benevo- 
lence why  Adam  should  have  had  posterity.  "  The  state  of 
all  mankind,"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "  did  so  far  depend  on 
Adam,  that  by  his  fall  they  all  fall  into  sorrow,  and  pain,  and 
death  spiritual  and  temporal.  And  all  this  is  no  ways  incon- 
sistent with  either  the  justice  or  goodness  of  God."  This  is 
sound  Calvinism;  but  he  immediately  adds  a  proviso:  All 
this  is  perfectly  consistent  "  with  the  justice  and  goodness  of 
God  :"  "  Provided,  all  may  recover  through  the  second 
Adam  whatever  they  lost  through  the  first."  But  if  this  be 
SO,  then  it  is  the  coming  of  the  second  Adam,  "  and  the  grace 
of  the  gospel,"  which  alone  vindicates  "  the  justice  and  good- 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  47 

ness  of  God"  in  the  fall  of  Adam's  posterity  "  into  sorrow, 
and  pain,  and  death."  But  as  God  is  supremely  just  and 
good,  there  could,  of  course,  have  been  no  such  fall,  if  there 
had  been  no  "second  Adam"  —  and  no  "grace  of  the  gos- 
pel." *  Thus  the  offspring  of  Adam  are  indebted  to  pure 
(/rare  for  this  dreadful  "  fall  into  sorrow,  pain  and  death  ;" 
which  otherwise  would  have  been  neither  just  nor  good,  and 
so  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  the  righteous 
Ruler  of  the  universe  !  Thus  we  reach  the  strange  conclu- 
sion, that  to  Divine  grace  alone  we  must  trace  these  sorrow- 
ful calamities  which  afflict  mankind,  these  wide-spread  and 
desolating  ruins  of  the  fall !  Nor  does  it  help  the  matter  in 
the  least,  that  this  scheme  supposes  the  all-wise  Creator  to 
have  entered  into  "  a  covenant"  with  Adam,  including  cer- 
tain terms  and  conditions,  involving  certain  consequences  upon 
himself  and  his  posterity  in  the  event  of  his  fall ;  but  that 
to  suppose  "  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth"  to  carry  into  effect 
those  terms  and  conditions,  which  he  himself  had  prescribed, 
would  be  an  impeachment  of  both  "his  justice  and  good- 
ness !"  So  that  nothing  less  than  the  sacrifice  of  God's  own 
Son,  the  infinite  grace  of  that  exalted  victim,  is  sufficient  to 
relieve  the  eternal  throne  of  such  a  stain  and  "justify  the 
ways  of  God  to  men."  Can  this  be  the  true  idea  of  gospel 
grace,  viz.  a  compensation  for  the  hardships,  the  injustice, 
the  cruelty  which  mankind  must  have  suffered  from  the  first 
covenant,  if  they  had  been  doomed  to  endure  precisely  what 
an  infinitely  just  and  good  God  had  threatened  to  inflict  ? 

All  the  leading  authors  on  the  Arminian  side  of  the  ques- 
tion admit,  and  several  of  them  largely  demonstrate,  that  the 
original  threatening  :  "  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  that, 
shall  surely  die" — included  both  Adam  and  his  posterity. 
Thus  Wesley  :  "In  and  through  their  first  parent,  all  his 
posterity  died  in  a  spiritual  sense  (not  merely  a  temporal  death 

*  For  the  foregoing  extract  from  Wesley,  see  his  work  on  Original  Sin, 
part  3,  sec.  6. 


48  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINTANTSM.  Let.  III. 

as  Taylor  had  argued).  By  this  "  one  man,  sin  entered  and 
passed  upon  all  men/'*  Of  course,  this  was  threatened  in 
the  "  covenant"  with  Adam.  Watson  also  conclusively 
proves  that  "  death  eternal"  was  involved  in  the  same  threat- 
ening. "  In  or  through  Adam,  guilt  (exposure  to  just  pun- 
ishment) came  upon  all  men."f  Thus  far  their  scheme  is 
Calvinistic.  But  how  do  they  reconcile  this  including  of 
Adam's  offspring  under  the  curse,  with  "  the  justice  and 
goodness"  of  God  ?  Why,  says  Adam  Clarke,  "  God  pro- 
vided a  Redeemer."  And  but  for  this  provision  "it  would 
have  been  unjust  to  permit  them  to  propagate  their  like  in 
such  circumstances  that  their  offspring  must  be  unavoidably 
and  eternally  wretched."  J  But  this  is  the  same  as  to  say, 
that  the  all-knowing,  most  wise  and  true  God  made  a  threat- 
ening, which  both  his  justice  and  goodness  forbid  him  to 
execute  !  And,  of  course,  it  follows,  that  He  never  intended 
to  execute  it !  For  how  could  God  intend  to  execute  a 
threatening,  which  would  be  an  impeachment  of  his  attributes 
of  justice  and  goodness  ?  As  well  may  we  affirm  that  He 
makes  promises  which  He  cannot  in  justice  and  goodness  per- 
form, and  which  He  never  intends  to  perform  !  But  this  is 
sheer  blasphemy. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  position  which  "  the  grace  of 
the  gospel"  holds  in  the  Arminian  scheme  is  this — to  make 
it  right  and  good  for  God  to  execute  his  threatenings,  which 
otherwise  would  have  been  unjust  and  cruel — threatenings 
which  he  never  could  have  intended  to  execute,  because  they 
were  contrary  to  his  justice  and  mercy  !  The  whole  scheme 
is  therefore  resolved  into  the  payment  of  a  debt  to  the  in- 
jured creature,  and  it  is  absurd  to  say  with  the  Apostle,  "  the 
grace  of  God  bringeth  salvation."  He  should  rather  have 
said,  "  Thanks  be  unto  God  for  his  unspeakable  justice, 
which  pays  the  righteous  demands  which  mankind  have  upon 

*  Original  Sin,  part  2,  sec.  1.  f  Clarke's  Com.  on  Rom.  5  :  14. 

X  See  his  Com.  on  Rom.  5,  near  the  close. 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  49 

him  for  the  injuries  they  suffered  under  the  original  threat- 
ening, '  tlwu  shall  surely  die  !'  "  Such  are  some  of  the  strange 
inconsistencies — to  use  no  harsher  term — of  Arminian  grace  ! 
That  we  have  correctly  understood  the  Arminian  scheme, 
is  further  evident  from  the  following  argument  abridged  from 
Watson  :  "  It  is  not  denied  that  the  will  in  its  purely  natu- 
ral state  and  independent  of  all  grace,  can  incline  only 
to  evil.  But  the  cpuestion  is,  whether  it  is  so  left,  and 
whether,  if  this  be  contended  for,  from  whatever  cause  it 
may  arise,  whether  from  the  influence  of  circumstances 
or  co-action,  or  from  its  own  invincible  depravity,  it  ren- 
ders him  punishable  who  never  had  the  means  of  pre- 
venting his  will  from  lapsing  into  this  diseased  state,  who  was 
born  with  this  moral  disease,"  &c.  "  We  reply,"  says  Wat- 
son, "  that  this  is  only  true  when  the  time  of  trial  is  past,  as 
in  devils  and  apostates )  and  then  only  because  they  are  per- 
sonally guilty  of  having  so  vitiated  their  wills,"  &c.  "  They 
themselves  are  justly  chargeable  with  this  state  of  their  wills 
and  all  the  evils  resulting  from  it.  But  the  case  is  widely 
different  with  men  who,  by  their  hereditary  corruption,  and 
the  fall  of  human  nature,  to  which  they  were  not  consenting 
parties,  are  born  with  a  will  averse  to  all  good."*  But  if 
this  be  a  correct  view  of  the  case,  it  follows  necessarily  that 
if  men  had  been  left  in  that  "  purely  natural  state,"  and  the 
children  of  Adam  had  been  born  without  any  interference  of 
grace,  without  any  atonement,  they  could  not  have  been 
"  held  to  be  culpable ;"  they  would  not  have  been  "  punish- 
able" for  original  depravity,  nor  "for  any  of  the  evils  result- 
ing from  it."  So  that  if  the  posterity  of  Adam  had  only 
been  so  fortunate  as  to  have  had  no  grace  provided  for  them, 
not  a  soul  of  them  could  have  been  culpable,  or  punishable. 
Thus  it  is  to  grace  we  must  impute  all  the  guilt  and  misery 
which  have  ever  befallen  men,  excepting  only  our  first  pa- 
rents, who  became  sinners  without  grace.  And  even  Adam  and 

*  Institutes,  vol.  ii.  pp.  437,  433. 
5 


50  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  III. 

Eve,  as  we  will  presently  show,  could  not  have  committed, 
according  to  this  scheme,  more  than  the  first  transgression, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  expressly  affirmed  that  they  thereby  lost 
their  "freedom  of  will,"  which  was  restored  by  grace!  From 
all  which  it  follows  that  "  the  grace  of  the  gospel"  was  in- 
deed a  great  favor,  so  far  as  respects  the  pardon  of  the  first 
sin,  but  that  ever  since,  it  has  been  "  evil  and  only  evil  con- 
tinually !" 

But  perhaps  the  Arminian  will  reply,  that  but  for  the  grace 
provided  in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  Adam  must  have  speed- 
ily perished,  and  of  course  could  have  had  no  posterity. 
"  Had  our  first  parents,"  says  Watson  (vol.  ii.  p.  395), 
"  died  '  in  the  day'  they  sinned,  which,  but  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  system  of  mercy  and  long  suffering,  for  any  thing 
that  appears,  they  must  have  done,  the  human  race  would 
have  perished  with  them,"  &c.  And  on  page  398,  he  speaks 
of  the  opposite  opinion  as  a  Calvinistic  "  assumption" — "one 
of  the  great  and  leading  mistakes"  of  the  Calvinists,  and  as 
great  presumption  to  assume  it  as  a  truth,  that  they  would 
have  multiplied  their  species  only  for  eternal  destruction. 
But  if  Arminians  correctly  describe  their  own  system,  it  is 
obvious  that,  so  far  as  respects  the  posterity  of  Adam,  the 
probability  of  their  existence  would  have  been  at  least  as 
great  without  grace  as  with  it.  Without  "  the  grace  of  the 
gospel,"  as  they  explain  it,  mankind  would  have  been  neither 
culpable  nor  punishable  for  their  conduct,  as  Watson  himself 
affirms.  They  would  all  have  been  born  in  a  guiltless  state, 
where  they  would  deserve  neither  blame  nor  punishment  for 
original  depravity;  and  "they  could  not  have  been  held  to 
be  culpable  for  any  of  the  evils  resulting  from  this  invincible 
depravity"  "because  their  wills  could  have  inclined  only  to 
evil."  It  is  folly,  therefore,  to  talk  of  "multiplying  their 
species  for  eternal  destruction."  They  would  have  been  mul- 
tiplied in  a  perfectly  guiltless  state,  deserving  neither  blame 
nor  punishment.     And  certainly  such  a  state  would  have 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  51 

been  no  less  worthy  of  the  Supreme  Kuler,  than  the  present 
state  of  things;  viz.  an  arrangement  of  Arminian  grace,  in 
which  they  are  u  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  do  their 
mothers  conceive  them;"  and  worse  still,  only  a  part  of  these 
"  children  of  wrath"  are  certain  to  be  saved,  while  thousands 
were  known  to  the  Divine  Mind  as  infallibly  certain  to  be 
miserable  for  ever  for  their  sin.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
on  this  scheme,  it  would  have  been  far  better,  it  would  not 
have  been  unjust  at  all,  as  Dr.  Clarke  affirms,  but  both  right- 
eous and  good,  "  to  permit  them  to  propagate  their  like  in 
suck  circumstances,"  and  without  any  "  system  of  mercy," 
which  on  Arminian  principles  only  had  the  effect  to  render 
them  justly  "  punishable"  and  exposed  to  endless  destruc- 
tion. Nor  does  this  doctrine  of  Arminian  grace  harmonize 
more  logically  with  other  aspects  of  the  subject.  In  regard 
to  Adam,  Watson  affirms  that  the  sentence,  "  In  the  day 
thou  eatest  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  was  to  be  executed  "in 
the  self-same  day  of  the  transgression ;"  in  other  words, 
Adam  must  have  died,  and  so  could  have  had  no  posterity. 
But  Dr.  Clarke  says  it  means  "  literally,  a  death,  thou  shalt 
die.  From  that  moment  thou  shalt  become  mortal  and  shalt 
continue  in  a  dying  state  till  thou  die.  This  we  find  literally 
accomplished."  *  So  also,  President  Edwards  has  shown 
conclusively,  that  the  expression  among  the  Hebrews,  "in 
the  day,"  does  not  necessarily  signify  immediate  death,  or 
that  the  exaction  of  the  sentence  should  be  within  twenty-four 
hours  from  the  act,  particularly  not  the  punishment  in  its 
full  extent."  The  force  of  the  phrase  implies  (1.)  "  a  realcon- 
nection  between  the  sin  and  the  punishment,  as  in  Ezek.  33 : 
12,  13."  (2.)  "  That  Adam  should  be  exposed  to  death  by  one 
transgression,  without  a  second  trial.  1  Kings  2  :  37.  Solo- 
mon says  to  Shimei :  On  the  day  thou  goest  out  *  *  *  thou 
shalt  know  for  certain  that  thou  shalt  surely  die,  i.  e.  he 
should  be  liable  to  death  for  the  first  offense."     (3.)  "  Be- 

*  Com.  on  Gon.  2  :  17. 


52  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  III. 

sides,"  reasons  Edwards,  "  God  did  not  oblige  himself  to 
execute  the  punishment  in  its  utmost  extent  in  that  day. 
It  was  in  part  executed  immediately.  Adam  lost  his  inno- 
cence, died  spiritually,  became  corrupt,  miserable,  helpless, 
mortal."*  "  Adam,"  he  continues,  "  was  that  day  subjected 
to  the  curse  of  the  law  and  condemnation  to  eternal  perdi- 
tion." "In  the  language  of  Scripture,  he  is  dead,  i.  e.  in  a 
state  of  condemnation  to  death ;  just  as  the  believer  immedi- 
ately 'hath  etei-nal  life  abiding  in  him/  i.  e.  hath  the  begin- 
ning of  eternal  life.  So  there  was  nothing  in  the  threatening 
that  bound  God  to  execute  the  full  punishment  at  once,  nor 
any  thing  that  determined  that  Adam  should  have  no  poster- 
ity." All  these  things  were  reserved  in  the  power  of  the 
Creator.  So,  in  like  manner,  the  believer,  who  "  hath  eter- 
nal life,"  will  at  death  and  judgment  receive  a  vastly  greater 
degree  of  the  same  gracious  reward.  And  the  angels  that 
sinned,  did  not  receive  their  full  punishment,  which  is  re- 
served to  the  end  of  the  world.  These  examples  show  that  it 
is  in  perfect  harmony  with  other  Divine  dispensations,  both 
of  goodness  and  severity,  that  Adam  should  be  permitted  to 
live,  though  threatened  with  death. 

But  suppose  we  adopt  Watson's  view,  viz.  "  that  the  sen- 
tence of  death  ("  temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal,"  as  he 
explains  it,)  was  to  be  executed  in  the  self-same  day  Adam 
fell."  The  first  and  immediate  consequence,  we  are  assured, 
would  have  been  the  entire  loss  of  "  freedom  of  will." 
And  though  this  loss — Adam  having  "had  his  trial,  and 
become  personally  guilty  of  having  vitiated  his  will " — 
would  not  have  exempted  him  from  being  justly  chargeable 
with  sin ;  his  posterity,  according  to  Watson,  "  being  born 
with  a  will  averse  to  all  good,"  would  not  have  been  "punish- 
able." Besides,  as  the  original  law  did  not  demand  instanta- 
neous punishment,  but  would  have  been  satisfied  with  the 
execution  of  its  threatening  at  any  time  "  in  the  day  "  of 

*  Original  Sin,  p.  436. 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  53 

transgression,  it  can  never  be  shown  that  the  same  sovereign- 
ty which  might  justly  have  granted  a  respite  of  a  day,  could 
not  have  added  a  month,  or  a  year,  or  many  years,  to  beings 
who  would  have  propagated  a  race  of  men  meriting  neither 
blame  nor  punishment.  But  whatever  we  may  think  of  this 
matter,  it  is  plain  that  Watson's  great  argument  against  **  the 
Calvinistic  assumption  "  must  fall  to  the  ground.  On  Arniin- 
iau  principles,  it  is  evident  the.  offspring  of  Adam  could  never 
have  sinned  at  all,  if  they  had  not  become  sinners  by  grace  ! 

Further :  The  Arminian  notion  of  the  freedom  of  the 
will  implies  "  indifference ;  "  or,  in  the  language  of  President 
Edwards,  "  that  equilibrium  whereby  the  will  is  free  from 
all  antecedent  bias."  But,  owing  to  the  fall,  man  becoming 
"  inclined  to  evil  and  that  continually,"  could  have  no  such 
freedom  of  will ;  therefore,  he  was  no  longer  a  free  agent ; 
therefore,  he  could  commit  no  more  sin,  for  none  but  a  free 
agent  can  violate  a  moral  law.  Hence,  mankind  must  have 
fallen  into  a  state  resembling  "  sinless  perfection."  Watson 
admits  the  fact  of  this  loss  of  freedom  and  of  capacity  to 
good  or  evil.  Hence,  he  quotes  Arminius,  affirming  that 
"  the  will  of  man,  with  respect  to  true  good,  is  captivated, 
destroyed  and  lost,  and  has  no  powers  whatever,  except  such 
as  are  excited  by  grace."  He  also  calls  this  condition  of  the 
will  "  an  invincible  inclination  to  evil ;  "  and  maintains  that 
"  in  its  purely  natural  state,"  "  the  will  can  incline  only  to 
evil."  Of  course,  as  he  affirms,  on  Arminian  principles, 
they  could  have  sinned  no  more  if  "  the  grace  of  the  gospel" 
had  not  stepped  in  to  render  mankind  blame-worthy,  and  ex- 
pose them  to  sin  and  its  punishment.* 

As  to  the  case  of  our  first  parents  (to  say  nothing  of  the 

*  This  singular  notion  that  man  by  the  fall  lost  his  "  freedom  of  will," 
and  became  a  sort  of  machine,  appears  to  be  quito  a  favorite  foaturo  of  Ar- 
minian theology.  Thus  :  "One  of  tho  first  and  unconditional  results  of  this 
grace  (of  God)  was  the  endowment  of  man  with  free  will,  *  *  * 
that  attribute  in  man  which  constitutes  him  a  Jit  subject  of  rowards  and 
punishments,       *       *       *       a  propor  subject  <>j    moral  government."     Por- 

5* 


54  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM  Let.  III. 

fallen  angels),  it  might  be  argued  that  they,  too,  having  lost 
their  "  freedom  of  indifference,"  and  having  become  corrupt 
and  "  inclined  to  evil  continually "  and  invincibly,  could 
have  sinned  no  more.  But  he  replies,  that  "  the  original 
act  being  their  own  and  in  their  power,  they  were  justly 
chargeable  with  the  state  of  their  wills  and  all  the  evils  re- 
sulting from  it."  This  conclusion  is  by  no  means  self-evi- 
dent. Suppose  a  man  of  choice  to  deprive  himself  of  reason, 
would  he  be  bound  to  perform  moral  acts,  of  which  he  has 
become  utterly  incapable ;  or  could  he  be  punished  for  not 
performing  them,  and  made  to  suffer  eternal  torments  for  the 
neglect,  just  as  though  he  were  in  possession  of  all  the 
necessary  powers  of  moral  agency.*  The  same  reasoning 
applies  to  the  case  of  our  first  parents,  after  they  had  lost 
their  freedom  of  indifference.  Their  first  sin  must .  have 
been  their  last,  but  for  grace  ! 

That  we  have  not  been  drawing  a  caricature  of  the 
doctrinal  views  of  Arminian  Methodism,  is  further  apparent 
from  the  following  extracts  from  the  stereotyped  volume  of 
doctrinal  tracts,  which  were  originally  bound  with  the  Disci- 
pline. "  We  say,  man  hath  his  freedom  of  will,  not  naturally 
but  hy  grace."  "  We  believe  that  in  the  moment  Adam 
fell,  he  had  no  freedom  of  will  left."  And  after  quoting 
Baxter  and  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  9 — 
"  God  hath  endowed  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural  lib- 
erty, that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity 
determined  to  good  or  evil  " — the  writer  (Wesley)  adds  — 
"  Sure,  here   is  as  much  said  for  free  will  as  any  man  needs 

ter's  Compendium  of  Methodism,  pp.  288,  289.  This  is  the  same  as  to  say 
that,  but  for  gospel  grace,  Adam  and  all  his  posterity  would  not  have  been 
"fit  subjects  of  either  rewards  or  punishments .' "  Again:  "The  human 
family  would  be  completely  unmanned."  Of  course,  they  would  have  been 
"  mere  machines." 

*  For  an  ablo  discussion  of  this  point,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  "  Bib- 
lical Repertory,"  conducted  principally  by  the  Professors  at  Princeton,  N.  J. 
Soo  tho  July  No.  1831. 


Let.  III.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  55 

to  say,  and  perhaps  more."  In  other  words,  the  Presbyterian 
doctrine  says  all  that  nod  to  be  said  on  the  subject.  This 
caudid  admission  of  their  great  chief,  should  silence  "  the 
hard  speeches  "  which  are  so  commonly  and  fluently  uttered 
against  Presbyterians,  denouncing  us  as  denying  free-agency, 
and  representing  man  as  a  mere  machine,  which  acts  only  as  it 
is  acted  upon. 

Among  the  great  lights  of  modern  Arminianism,  perhaps 
no  writer  stands  higher  than  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  author 
of  the  Commentary.  In  addition  to  the  quotations  already 
given,  the  following  are  his  sentiments  upon  the  topics  now 
under  review  :  "  Had  man  been  left  just  as  he  was  when  he 
fell  from  God,  he  in  all  probability  had  been  utterly  unsal- 
able ;  as  he  appears  to  have  lost  all  his  spiritual  light  and  un- 
derstanding, and  even  his  moral  feeling."  "  As  they  (Adam 
and  Eve)  were,  so  would  have  been  all  their  posterity,  had 
not  some  gracious  principle  been  supernaturally  restored  to 
enlighten  their  minds,  to  give  them  some  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  of  right  and  wrong,  of  virtue  and  vice,  and  thus 
bring  them  into  a  salvable  state."  *  But  if  this  be  a  true 
statement,  our  first  parents,  having  sunk  into  a  condition 
in  which  they  had  "no  moral  feeling,  no  knowledge  of  right 
and  wrong,"  were  no  longer  moral  agents.  Of  course,  they 
could  perform  neither  holy  nor  unholy  acts ;  they  could  sin 
no  more,  until  grace  restored  their  freedom,  and  enabled 
mankind  to  commit  all  the  sin  that  has  flowed  from  the  first 
transgression.  Thus  God  is  represented  as  the  author  of  all 
sin  since  the  fall  !  The  society  of  devils,  moreover,  accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  is  as  pure  from  actual  sin  as  that  of  the 
angels  around  the  eternal  throne  !  Nor  is  it  conceivable  that, 
on  this  scheme,  there  can  be  any  punishment  of  a  sinful  being, 
who  in  the  act  of  sin  has  blotted  out  conscience,  moral  feel- 
ing, and  all  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  unless  there  be  also 
punishment  by  grace  I 

*  Discourses,  p.  77. 


56  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

The  result  of  the  whole  is,  that  we  have  original  sin 
which  is  no  sin — depravity  without  fault,  "  inclination  to 
evil "  without  criminality,  the  penalty  of  the  law  inflicted 
upon  those  who  are  not  subjects  of  law,  and  wondrous 
"grace"  to  deliver  us  from  a  punishment  which  we  do  not 
deserve  ! 

And  now,  most  reverend  and  worthy  Bishop,  permit  me, 
in  closing  this  Letter,  to  retort  the  language  which  you  have 
commended  as  applicable  to  our  system  :  "  Truth  constrains 
us  to  say,  we  have  found  what  appears  to  our  mind  great  con- 
fusion, perplexity  and  contradiction,  arising  out  of  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  (Arminian)  doctrine."  *  If  you  can  invent 
any  method  of  scriptural  exegesis  or  logical  .reasoning  by 
which  it  is  possible  to  reduce  this  chaos  to  order  and  harmo- 
nize its  repulsive  and  discordant  elements,  you  will  do  more 
to  earn  an  earthly  immortality  than  all  those  who  have  pre- 
ceded you  in  the  same  cause. 

In  our  next  Letter  we  hope  to  close  the  discussion  of  the 
important  topic  of  Original  Sin  and  its  relations. 


LETTER   IV. 

ORIGINAL  OR  BIRTH  SIN. —  STATE  AND  PROSPECTS  OF  IN- 
FANTS.—SCRIPTURAL  VIEWS  OF  DEPRAVITY.  — FREEDOM 
OF  WILL  NOT  INCONSISTENT  WITH  THE  TRUE  DOCTRINE 
OF  THE  CONTROL  OF  MOTIVES. 

Rev.  Sir — In  order  properly  to  understand  the  relations 
of  "  Original  Sin"  to  the  state  and  prospects  of  infants,  espe- 
cially such  as  die  before  they  are  capable  of  moral  action,  let 
us  look  briefly  at  several  points  which  are  conceded  by  Ar- 
minians. 

i.  "  The  full  penalty  of  Adam's  offense  passed  upon  all 
*  Foster's  Objections,  p.  29. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  57 

his  posterity."  Watson's  List.  vol.  ii.  p.  67.  Of  course,  as 
be  affirms,  "  the  threatening*  pronounced  upon  the  first  pair 
have  all  respect  to  their  posterity  as  well  as  to  themselves." 
p.  52. 

ii.  "  The  provision  made  in  the  gospel  does  not  affect  the 
state  in  which  men  are  born — the  fact  of  their  being  born 
liable  to  (temporal)  death,  a  part  of  the  penalty,  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  they  are  born  under  the  whole  malediction." 
Watson,  vol.  ii.  pp.  66,  58. 

iii.  "  If  it  was  righteous  to  attach  that  penalty  to  man's 
offense,  it  is  most  certainly  righteous  to  execute  it."  vol.  ii. 
p.  100.  Of  course,  it  would  be  "  righteous  to  execute  the  full 
penalty"  ("  death  temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal,")  upon 
"  the  posterity  of  Adam." 

No  language  could  express  more  plainly  the  positions  of 
Calvinists,  than  the  three  items  just  quoted.  No  terms  could 
utter  more  explicitly  the  great  scriptural  trutb,  that  by  the 
fall,  all  mankind  are  under  "  the  wrath  and  curse"  of  God — 
"are  bom  under  the  whole  malediction" — and,  of  course,  in- 
fants, as  part  of  that  "  posterity,"  are  justly  liable  to  suffer 
"  the  full  penalty." 

But  is  not  this  the  same  as  teaching  the  horrible  doctrine 
of  "  infant  damnation  V  By  no  means.  Men  may  be  liable 
i.  e.  justly  exposed  to  great  evils,  which  they  will  never  suffer. 
So  it  was  with  all  the  redeemed  now  in  glory,  and  so  it  waa 
and  is  with  all  who  die  infants.  Through  "  the  grace  of  the 
gospel,"  they  are  washed,  sanctified  and  saved.  No  Calvinist, 
so  far  as  known  to  us,  has  ever  denied  this  blessed  and  con- 
solatory truth.  Even  Calvin,  in  reply  to  the  objection  that 
u  infants  who  are  incapable  of  believing,  remain  in  their  con- 
demnation," replies  thus :  "  I  oppose  a  contrary  argument. 
All  those  whom  Christ  blessed  are  exempt  from  the  curse  of 
Adam  and  the  wrath  of  God.  And  as  infants  are  blessed  by 
him,  it  follows  that  they  are  exempted  from  death."* 
*  Inst.  vol.  ii.  p.  520. 


58  DIFFICULTIES   OF  AKMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

But  the  point  of  divergency  where  the  two  schemes  of  doc- 
trine separate  is  this  :  On  what  principle  are  infants  saved  ? 
Arminians  affirm,  as  was  shown  in  our  last  Letter,  that  "  the 
provision  of  a  Redeemer"  was  demanded  as  a  matter  of  right, 
otherwise  the  full  execution  of  the  threatening  on  the  poster- 
ity of  Adam  would  have  been  palpably  imjust  I  The  gospel, 
therefore,  was  a  remedy  for  the  severity,  injustice  and  cru- 
elty with  which  God's  covenant  threatened  the  children  of 
Adam  !  Of  course,  the  Arminian  idea  of  grace  is  the  pay- 
ment of  a  just  debt !  To  speak  of  the  gospel  as  a  method 
of  grace  and  mercy,  when  both  justice  and  goodness  would 
have  been  sacrificed  if  the  offer  of  salvation  had  been  with- 
held, is  the  most  absolute  folly. 

These  remarks  will  prepare  the  way  for  a  series  of  observa- 
tions on  the  subject  of  the  state  and  future  prospects  of  in- 
fants. 

1.  The  Romish  doctrine  represents  the  salvation  of  infants 
as  dependent  upon  baptism.  Hence  Papists  make  it  the  duty 
even  of  women,  the  nurse  for  example,  to  baptize  a  new- 
born child,  if  death  should  be  imminent.*  Hence  they  have 
their  limbus  infantum,  a  place  somewhere  between  heaven 
and  hell,  where  unbaptized  infants  are  supposed  to  remain  in 
a  state  of  insensibility.  A  sentiment  nearly  resembling  this 
was  held  by  some  of  the  earlier  Arminians,  such  as  Episco- 
pius,  Curcellseus  and  others,  who  taught  that  persons  dying 
in  infancy  always  remain  in  an  infantile  state,  having  no 
more  ideas  in  the  future  world  than  they  had  in  this. 
Neither  early  nor  later  Calvinists  have  ever  held  such  an  un- 
worthy doctrine  as  this,  or  one  approaching  so  nearly  to  "  in- 
fant damnation  !" 

2.  Even  Watson,  though  for  the  most  part  calm  and  de- 
cent in  stating  the  views  of  his  opponents,  affirms  that  the 
Calvinistic  system  "  brings  with  it  the  repulsive  and  shocking 

*  In  his  controversy  with  Hughes,  Dr.  Breckinridge  hintod  the  actual  ex- 
istence of  ante-natuni  baptism  among  Romanists. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  59 

opinion  of  the  eternal  punishment  of  infants."  Bishop  Simp- 
son ami  Mr.  Foster  think  there  is  "abundant  evidence"  of 
the  truth  of  the  charge.*  With  a  great  show  of  candor,  how- 
ever, they  add  that  "  this  horrible  doctrine  is  now  so  univer- 
sally disclaimed,  that  we  suppose  a  reformation  has  been 
wrought,  &c."  This  great  change  among  Calvinists  they  as- 
cribe to  "  the  exposure  of  the  horrors  of  the  system"  by  Ar- 
minians  !  But  it  so  happens  that  the  same  unworthy  artifice 
was  employed  by  Fletcher  in  his  fourth  Check,  nearly  ninety 
years  ago  :  "  Calvinists,"  he  tells  us,  "  are  novo  ashamed  of 
consigning  infants  to  the  torments  of  hell."  This  was  written 
in  1772.  If  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  F.  have  read  the  fourth 
Check,  they  ought  to  have  known  that  their  "now"  is  nearly 
a  century  out  of  date,  and  proves  to  be  an  old  Arminian 
stratagem,  altogether  unworthy  an  honorable  controvertist. 

If  the  Calvinists  of  former  or  latter  times  were  chargeable 
with  this  revolting  dogma,  we  have  not  discovered  the  evi- 
dence in  their  writings.  Francis  Turretine,  one  of  the  dis- 
tinguished theological  successors  of  Calvin  at  Geneva,  pub- 
lished his  system  of  Theology  a  hundred  years  before  the 
time  of  Fletcher.  In  the  only  place  which  we  have  noticed 
where  he  speaks  of  the  prospects  of  the  infants  of  "infidels 
and  pagans,"  he  says  :  "  Christian  charity  bids  us  hope  (nos 
jubeat  sperare)  that  they  are  saved."  And  in  reply  to  the 
objection  that  "without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God," 
Turretine  says :  "  They  (infants)  please  God  on  account  of 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ  imputed  to  them  for  remission  of 
their  sins,  though  themselves  incapable  of  apprehending  him 
by  faith."  And  again,  he  quotes  Matt.  19  :  14,  "  Of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  For  although  they  are  adduced 
as  an  example  of  humility  for  adults,  yet  Christ  includes  (not 
excludes)  infants  themselves  in   the  promise. "f     No   doubt 

*  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  209. 

f  Inst.  Thenl.  Locus  15.    Quaestio    14.     The  work  is  the  text-book   at 
Princeton,  and  a  standard  authority  throughout  the  world. 


60  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

there  was  a  Fletcher  or  a  Foster  of  Turretine's  day,  to  prac- 
tice the  same  small  ad  eaptandum  artifice,  viz.  "  Calvinists 
have  now  become  ashamed  of  consigning  infants  to  hell !" 
So  also  Mr.  Toplady,  who  died  in  1778,  one  of  the  most  able 
and  decided  opponents  Wesley  ever  had.  No  man  ever  sus- 
pected him  of  a  disposition  to  disguise  any  opinions  he  might 
think  worth  holding.  Yet  on  this  very  subject  of  "  infant 
damnation"  he  says  :  "  I  testify  my  firm  belief  that  the  souls 
of  all  departed  infants  are  with  God  in  glory — that  reproba- 
tion hath  nothing  to  do  with  them."  Again  :  "  Such  as  die 
in  infancy  are  all  undoubtedly  saved."*  And  Dr.  John 
Owen,  whose  first  work  was  published  in  1642,  says  :  "  It 
follows  unavoidably,  that  infants  who  die  in  infancy,  have 
the  grace  of  regeneration  and  as  good  a  right  to  baptism  as 
believers  themselves."f  And  that  eminently  pious  and  judi-s. 
cious  commentator,  Dr.  Scott :  "  Infants  are  as  capable  of 
regeneration  as  grown  persons.  And  there  is  ground  to  con- 
clude, that  all  those  who  have  not  committed  actual  trans- 
gressions, though  they  share  in  the  effects  of  the  first  Adam's 
offense,  will  also  share  in  the  blessings  of  the  second  Adam's 
gracious  covenant."!  Hundreds  of  similar  testimonies  might 
be  adduced,  but  these  should  suffice  to  admonish  Arminians 
of  the  importance  of  committing  to  memory  the  command- 
ment, "  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neigh- 
bor." 

It  is  humiliating,  indeed,  to  find  even  so  sober  a  contro- 
vertist  as  Watson,  guilty  of  a  similar  unworthy  artifice : 
"  That  some  under  the  sentence  of  reprobation,  die  in  their 
infancy  is,  probably,  what  most  Calvinists  allow."  Observe 
how  guarded  —  "probably  what  most  Calvinists  allow !" 
Just  enough  said  to  convey  the  broad  inuendo,  but  not 
enough  to  alarm  conscience  with  the  thought  of  uttering  an 
untruth  !     Again,  he  says  :  "  If  their  doctrine  be  received,  it 

*  Works,  pp.  58,  142.  f  Works,  vol.  xxi.  p.  550. 

%  Com.  on  Matt.  19 :  14. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  Gl 

(the  death  of  infants  who  are  reprobates)  cannot  be  denied." 
But  this  is  mere  reckless  assertion  without  the  shadow  of 
proof.  There  is  no  feature  of  the  doctrine  of  Election  which 
requires  us  to  believe  any  infant  to  be  lost.  It  is  just  as  easy 
and  logical  to  believe  all  who  die  in  infancy  to  be  of  the  elect, 
as  to  believe  all  who  die  regenerate  to  be  of  the  elect.  Cal- 
vinists  can  and  do  deny  the  reprobation  of  the  one  class,  just 
as  consistently  as  the  other.  Viewing  the  race  as  one  great 
family  of  "  the  lost,"  it  is  perfectly  natural  and  logical  to 
hold  that  all  who  die  infants  are  "  chosen  in  Christ  from  the 
mass  unto  eternal  glory" — just  as  easy  as  to  believe  that  He 
who  gives  and  takes  life  at  his  pleasure,  can  manage  the 
affairs  of  his  providence  so  wisely  that  this  result  shall  be 
infallibly  secured.  If  our  Arminian  brethren  cannot  compre- 
hend so  plain  a  deduction,  it  is  their  fault,  not  ours. 

3.  One   of  the   strangest  mysteries  of  this   feature  of  the 
Arminian  system,  will  appear  in  the  following  contrast : 

"  All  are   born   under   the   whole         "  They   are   born  free  from   con- 
malediction." —  Watson.  demnation." — Fisk. 

"  Derived  depravity  is  damning  in         "  They  were  bqrn  corrupt,  and  so 

its  nature."- — Fisk.  cannot  be  guilty  for  this." — Foster. 

"By  the  obedience  of  ono  (Christ),         "As  to  infants,  they  aro  not,  in- 

righteousness  is  imputed  to    all   in-  deod,  born  justified  and  regenerate, 

fants,  and  they  stand  justified  before  Original  sin  is  not  takon  away,  as  to 

God  " — "  they  are  in  a  state  of  favor  infants,  by  Christ." —  Watson. 
or  justification." — Fletcher. 

"Every  punishment  supposes  the  "The  guilt  or  the  punishment  of 

offender  might  have  avoided  the  of-  Adam's  sin  is  charged  upon  his  wholo 

fense  for  which  he  is  punished,  other-  posterity,  a  main  part  of  which  pun- 

wiae  to  punish  him  would  be  palpably  iihment  consists  in  that  original  (un- 

unjust." — Wesley.  avoidable)  defilement,  in  which    they 

are  born." — Goodwin,    approved   by 
Watson. 

This  curious  contrast,  extracted  from  the  ablest  publica- 
tions of  the  General  Conference,  teaches  that  infants  are  born 
under  the  curse,  but  not  under  condemnation  —  are  justified, 
but  not  pardoned — are  punished,  but  suffer  no  punishment — 
are  originally  defiled,  and  thus  suffer  "palpable  injustice." 
6 


G2  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINTANTSM.  Let.  IV. 

4.  But  no  such  mystery  hangs  around  other  statements 
from  the  same  source  :  "  All  are  born,"  says  Wesley,  "  under 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  and  all  sin  deserve  eternal  misery." 
"Infants,  too,  die;  therefore,  they  have  sinned — by  original 
sin."  But  here  arises  the  question  :  How  are  these  infants 
to  be  saved  ?  "  In  the  ordinary  way,"  replies  Wesley, 
u  they  cannot  be  saved,  unless  this  stain  be  washed  away 
by  baptism."  "  The  benefit  is  to  be  received  through  bap- 
tism in  particular,  to  which  God  hath  tied  us,  though  he  has 
not  tied  himself."  "  Indeed,  where  baptism  cannot  be  had, 
the  case  is  different;  but  extraordinary  cases  do  not  make 
void  a  standing  rule."  *  This  appears  plain  enough.  With- 
out baptism,  no  infant  can  ordinarily  be  saved,  unless  in  ex- 
treme cases,  where  baptism  cannot  be  had  !  "  What,  then, 
becomes  of  the  thousands  of  infants  who  die  unbaptized,  but 
who  might  have  had  baptism  if  their  parents  had  desired  it  ? 
And  to  fix  the  meaning  beyond  doubt,  we  are  told  :  "  It  is 
certain,  by  God's  word,  that  children  who  are  baptized,  dying 
before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  saved."  The  baptized 
are  "  certainly  saved  " — but  then  what  becomes  of  the  un- 
baptized, of  whom  we  are  told :  "  It  has  been  proved  that 
this  original  stain  cleaves  to  every  child,  and  that  thereby 
they  are  '  children  of  wrath,'  and  liable  to  eternal  damna- 
tion." These  were  the  sentiments  of  Wesley ;  and  his  fol- 
lowers publish  and  circulate  them  widely.  If  they  wish  to 
discover  "  infant  damnation,"  let  them  look  at  home  !  It  is 
obvious  that  thousands  die  in  infancy  unbaptized,  but  who 
lived  where  "  baptism  could  have  been  had."  Of  course, 
"their  stain  was  not  washed  away  by  baptism,"  and  we  are 
assured  that,  "in  the  ordinary  way,"  such  infants  "cannot 
be  saved."  Now,  as  such  infants  do  not  fall  under  "  the 
extraordinary  cases,"  they  are  infallibly  lost !  There  is  no 
method  of  avoiding  this  logical  conclusion. 

5.  It  has  long  been  a  favorite  device  of  sectarian  bigotry 

•  Doctrinal  Tracts,  pp.  246,  251. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  63 

to  misrepresent  and  hold  up  to  detestation  the  views  of  the 
Preshyterian  church  on  this  topic.  Finding  that  the  uniform 
tenor  of  the  writings  of  our  leading  authors  and  preachers 
furnish  no  foundation  for  their  imputations,  Anniuiaiis 
have  labored  hard  to  torture  our  Confession  of  Faith  into 
some  declaration  such  as  would  suit  their  purpose.  We  are 
charged  with  the  everlasting  perdition  of  infants,  chiefly  on 
two  grounds : 

(1.)  "  The  Confession  no  where  expressly  affirms  that  all 
who  die  in  infancy  are  saved."  But,  neither  does  the  Meth- 
odist Book  of  Discipline  teach  that  doctrine.  Of  course,  it 
follows  that  the  preachers  must  hold  "  infant  damnation  ! " 
And  what  renders  this  more  probable  is,  that  they  are  taught 
in  their  form  of  baptism  to  say  that  "  all  men  are  conceived 
and  born  in  sin,"  and  "  to  call  upon  God,  the  Father,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  of  his  bounteous  mercy  he  will 
grant  to  this  child  that  ichich  by  nature  he  cannot  have;" 
that  he  would  "wash  him  and  sanctify  him  with  the  Holy 
Ghost;"  and  that  he  (the  child)  "may  be  delivered  from 
God's  lorath."  Now,  does  not  all  this  plainly  prove  that 
they  regard  the  child  as  an  object  of  God's  wrath  ;  and  that 
if  he  were  to  die  in  that  state  he  would  be  lost?  Does  it  not 
further  prove  that  the  preachers  believe  the  child  in  danger 
of  such  an  awful  fate  ?  else  why  should  they  pray  so  fer- 
vently for  his  deliverance  from  it — that  is,  a  deliverance  from 
a  fate  which  could  not  possibly  befall  him  ?  In  other  words, 
why  should  they  pray  that  God  would  not  hold  the  child  un- 
der his  wrath ;  that  he  would  not  do  a  thing  which,  them- 
selves being  judges,  would  be  "palpably  unjust,"  and  which 
would  exhibit  him  as  a  "  most  merciless  tyrant?"  A  strange 
sort  of  prayer,  truly !  How  evident,  therefore,  is  it,  that 
whatever  the  preachers  may  say,  their  own  Discipline  incul- 
cates "infant  damnation!"  (2.)  A  second  ground  of  the 
charge  against  Presbyterians,  of  teaching  that  some  infants 
dying  in  childhood  are  lost,  is,  that  our  Confession  employs 


64  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

the  phrase,  "  elect  infants/'  which  is  said  to  imply  that  some 
who  die  in  childhood  are  non-elect.  Not  to  repeat  what  has 
been  often  said,"  that  the  objected  phrase  is  perfectly  consist- 
ent with  the  persuasion  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are 
elected  or  saved  by  grace  from  among  the  lost  family  of  man- 
kind, and  of  course  that  they  will  not  be  wanting  when  the  "  Son 
of  man  shall  gather  his  elect  from  the  four  winds  of  heaven " 
(Matt.  24 :  31) :  not  to  urge  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  no 
where,  in  so  many  words,  reveal  the  salvation  of  all  such, 
though  giving  many  sweet  and  precious  intimations  of  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine  :  let  us  try  the  force  of  this  Arminian 
battery  upon  its  authors.  The  Methodist  Book  of  Discipline 
(Form  of  Baptism,  p.  105,)  employs  a  phraseology  similar 
to  that  of  our  Confession  :  "  Grant,"  say  they,  "  that  this 
child,  now  to  be  baptized,  may  ever  remain  in  the  number 
of  thy  faithful  and  elect  children."  This  of  course  cannot 
refer  to  election  to  national  privileges  or  family  immunities — 
but,  as  the  term  "  elect "  is  applied  to  a  particular  individual, 
it  must  mean  "personal  election."  And,  as  they  most 
violently  maintain  that  this  necessarily  implies  the  opposite 
reprobation,  it  follows  that  the  terms  "  elect  children " 
unavoidably  teach  the  horrible  doctrine  of  "reprobate 
children."  Thus,  this  heavy  artillery  of  Methodist  Ar- 
minians  recoils  upon  themselves.  A  few  victories  of  this 
sort  will  ruin  their  cause.  And  to  add  to  the  mystery  of 
the  transaction,  the  very  "  elect  child  "  then  being  baptized, 
is  in  danger  of  becoming  a  reprobate,  and,  of  course,  of  being 
lost !  The  proof  is  at  hand — the  preacher  as  he  performs 
the  service,  is  required  to  pray  most  fervently,  that  the  child 
may  remain  one  of  the  elect — "  ever  remain  in  the  num- 
ber of  thy  faithful  and  elect  children,"  i.  e.  not  become  a 
reprobate  and  perish  !  So  evident  is  it  that  the  Discipline 
teaches  the  horrible  doctrine  of  "  infant  reprobation."  * 

*  The  venerable  Dr.  L.  Boechor,  in  spoaking  of  the  calumnious  charge 
made  against  Calvinists,  of  holding  "  infant  damnation,"  says  :    "  I  have 


Lbt.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  65 

But  there  is  still  a  greater  mystery  connected  with  this 
subject.  We  are  accused  by  our  opponents  with  maintaining 
that  some  infants  are  forever  lost.  We  think,  however,  that 
on  the  principles  of  Arminian  Methodism,  no  infant  can 
possibly  be  saved.  What  is  salvation  ?  Does  it  not  imply 
deliverance  from  the  guilt,  pollution,  and  just  punishment 
of  sin  ?  Are  not  infants  declared  (Meth.  Discip.  p.  103,) 
to  be  "conceived  and  born  in  sin,"  and  of  course,  under  its 
guilt  and  pollution?  Are  not  these  evils  unavoidable? 
And  is  it  not  repeatedly  affirmed  in  the  standard  writings  of 
Methodism,  that  for  God  to  hold  his  creatures  responsible 
for  what  is  unavoidable,  would  be  "palpably  unjust,"  and 
worthy  the  government  only  of  a  "  merciless  tyrant ! " 
What  then  are  infants  to  be  saved  from?  From  an  act  of 
u  palpable  injustice  "  on  the  part  of  their  Judge  ?  From  the 
grasp  of  a  "  merciless  tyrant  ?  "  Most  manifestly,  therefore, 
on  these  principles  of  Methodism,  NO  INFANT  CAN  BE 
SAVED,  simply  because  no  infant  needs  salvation  !  With 
respect  to  all  the  vast  multitude  of  the  human  family  who 
have  gone  down  to  the  grave,  not  knowing  "  their  right  hand 
from  their  left,"  Christ  u  has  died  in  vain."  Their  song 
will  not  be,  "  Unto  Him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from 
our  sius  in  his  own  blood  " — for  they  never  stood  in  need  of 
"  washing."  Their  song  will  rather  be,  "  Unto  Him  that  by 
His  providence  cut  short  our  days,  and  saved  us  from 
living  any  longer  in  the  body — which  was  the  greatest  evil 
we  had  any  reason  to  fear  !  Thanks  be  to  Him,  who  thus 
snatched  us  from  exposure  to  Arminian  grace,  which  would 
have  restored  our  '  freedom  of  will '  and  made  us  responsible 
sinning  creatures  and  liable  to  everlasting  torments  !     Thanks 

never  soon  or  heard  of  any  (Calvinistic)  book  which  contained  such  a  senti- 
ment, nor  a  man,  minister  or  layman,  who  believed  or  taught  it.  And  I 
feel  authorized  to  say  that  Calvinists,  as  a  body,  are  as  far  from  teaching  it 
as  any  of  those  who  falsely  accuse  them.  Such  persons  should  commit  to 
memory  without  delay  the  ninth  commandment — -"Thou  shalt  not  boar 
false  witness  against  thy  neighbor." 

6* 


G6  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

Tbe  to  death,  the  king  of  terrors,  who  delivered  us  from  such 
a  scheme  of  grace,  from  such  a  system  of  mercy.  Or  rather, 
if  we  owe  any  gratitude  at  all,  it  is  because  we  have  received  no 
more  than  bare  justice — that  which  was  our  righteous  due,  and 
which  a  holy  God  could  not  have  withheld — l  for  we  were  born 
corrupt,  and  cannot  be  guilty  for  that  ['"*  Such,  on  strict 
Arminian  principles,  would  be  the  song  of  infants  in  heaven  ! 

Before  closing  this  Letter,  let  us  look  for  a  few  moments  at 
the  scriptural  view  of  the  subject,  which  is  involved  in  so 
many  strange  contradictions. 

The  tendencies  of  the  Arminian  scheme  are  plainly  to 
"reproach  our  Maker."  In  the  "covenant"  made  with 
Adam,  that  system  represents  God  as  "  a  hard  master."  To 
execute  the  terms  of  that  covenant  upon  the  posterity  of 
the  fallen  pair,  would  have  been  injustice,  cruelty,  &c.  To 
shield  the  character  of  the  Lawgiver  from  these  righteous 
and  true  imputations,  was  the  object  of  "  the  system  of 
mercy  ! "  The  gospel,  God's  greatest  and  best  gift,  is,  after 
all,  only  a  fair  and  equitable  "  compensation  "  for  outrageous 
wrong !  To  heal  this  outrage,  "  whatever  was  forfeited  in 
the  first  Adam,  has  been  either  restored  or  compensated  for 
by  the  second  Adam."  |  Thus,  the  "  Holy  One  of  Israel  " 
wipes  away  the  stain  which  otherwise  must  have  blotted  the 
purity  of  his  government. 

Calvinists,  on  the  other  hand,  view  "the  covenant"  with 

*  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  166.  In  another  place  Mr.  Fostor  says  : 
"  How  was  he  to  blame  for  an  existence  and  nature  which  were  foreod  upon 
him — which  never  at  any  period  he  consented  to,  and  which  he  never  could 
avoid  ?  "  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  our  Methodist  brethren  are  verging  so 
rapidly  toward  the  Pelagian  scheme  of  Taylor  of  Norwich,  who  was  also  an 
Arian.  President  Edwards  quotes  him  as  follows  :  "  If  we  come  into  the 
world  infected  with  sinful  and  depraved  dispositions,  then  sin  must  bo  natu- 
ral to  us ;  and  if  natural,  then  necessary ;  and  if  necessary,  then  no  sin  ; 
*  *  nor  can  it  in  any  respect  be  our  fault,  being  tohat  we  cannot  help." 
Even  Mr.  Wesley  solidly  refuted  theso  fundamental  heresies  of  Taylor.  See 
his  work  on  "  Original  Sin,"  in  reply  to  that  arch-horotic. 

f  Meth.  Quart.  Rev.  April,  1854. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  67 

Adam  as  like  all  others  of  God's  works,  originally  "very  good." 
"  But  our  first  parents  being  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own 
will,  fell  from  the  estate  wherein  they  were  created  by  sin- 
ning against  God."  *  "  By  the  disobedience  of  one,  many 
were  made  sinners."  "Adam,"  says  Watson,  "is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  public  man,  the  head  and  representative  of  the 
human  race."  f  "  By  the  offense  of  one,  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation."  Was  this  a  harsh,  cruel, 
unjust  arrangement?  Far  from  us  be  such  blasphemy  !  Ap 
Wesley  well  remarks,  "  That  deadly  wound  in  Adam"  pre 
pared  the  way  (created  the  necessity)  for  "  the  greatest  in- 
stance of  Divine  love."  Besides,  it  was  the  shortest  way  for 
man  to  obtain  everlasting  happiness.  By  this  method,  one 
man's  perfect  obedience  for  a  short  time,  would  have  secured 
eternal  life  to  all  mankind ;  whereas,  had  each  stood  bound 
for  himself,  it  must  have  remained  in  suspense  to  many  a* 
least,  until  their  personal  probation  had  expired;  and  no  one 
can  tell  how  large  a  number  would  have  failed  in  the  trial  and 
perished  for  ever ;  perhaps  more  than  now  perish. 

This  method  also  appears  reasonable  and  kind ;  because  it 
was  the  safest  method.  As  Wesley  has  truly  observed : 
"  Unless  in  Adam  all  had  died,  being  in  the  loins  of  their 
first  parent,  every  descendant  of  Adam  must  have  pcrsorially 
answered  for  himself  to  God.  It  seems  to  be  a  necessary 
consequence  of  this,  that  if  he  had  once  fallen,  once  violated 
any  command  of  God,  there  would  have  been  no  possibility 
of  his  rising  again ;  there  was  no  help ;  but  he  must  have 
perished  without  remedy."  "  Who  would  not  rather  be  on 
the  footing  he  is  now  ?  Who  would  wish  to  hazard  a  whole 
eternity  upon  one  stake  ?"  "  Where  then  is  the  man  that 
presumes  to  blame  God  for  not  preventing  Adam's  sin? 
Should  we  not  rather  bless  him  from  the  ground  of  the  heart 
for  therein  laying  the  grand  scheme  of  man's  redemption  ?"  J 

*  Shorter  Catochisui,  Q.  13.  f  Watson's  Instit. 

X  See  his  sermon  on  "  God's  love  to  fallen  man." 


68  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

Adam  was  obviously  the  most  proper  person  to  be  the  cove- 
nant head  of  all  mankind.  As  their  common  parent,  he  was 
equally  related  to  all,  and  had  the  strongest  motives  and  best 
opportunities  to  persevere  in  perfect  obedience.  The  most 
wise,  holy,  just  and  good  Grod  having  chosen  him  for  their 
head,  none  of  his  posterity,  if  they  had  been  all  alive  and  on 
the  spot,  could  without  attempting  to  be  wiser  than  their 
Maker,  have  refused  their  cordial  consent.  Would  it  have 
been  either  more  wise  or  more  merciful,  to  have  ordered  that 
each  individual  should  enter  the  world  in  the  immaturity  of 
his  being,  while  yet  his  faculties  of  body  and  soul  were  in  the 
imperfect  and  undeveloped  state,  then,  to  stand  his  trial  for 
weal  or  woe ;  or  that  oue  should  be  appointed,  strong  and 
vigorous,  in  all  the  perfection  of  that  original  manhood,  which 
the  all-wise  Grod  pronounced  "  very  good" — that  such  a  one 
should  be  given  us,  in  whose  hands  should  be  placed  our  des- 
tiny, and  by  whose  conduct  should  be  decided  the  future 
character  of  his  posterity  ?  Could  every  child  of  Adam  have 
looked  on  when  the  scheme  was  ordained  in  the  councils  of 
eternity,  true  modesty  would  have  dictated  the  right  answer 
to  these  inquiries.  And  had  the  result  been  the  establish- 
ment of  the  whole  human  family  in  perpetual  holiness  and 
happiness,  every  tongue  would  have  celebrated  the  wisdom 
and  extolled  the  benevolence  of  so  wise  and  wonderful  an 
arrangement. 

Another  topic  in  this  connection,  deserves  a  little  fur- 
ther notice.  Arminians,  with  all  their  talk  about  "  de- 
rived depravity,"  its  "  damning  nature,"  &c.  plainly  teach 
that  a  man  born  with  a  sinful  disposition,  a  depraved  na- 
ture, is  born  with  such  a  necessity  of  sinning  as  perfectly 
excuses  him.  To  relieve  men  of  this  inherited  necessity,  and 
in  part  restore  these  original  ruins  of  the  fall;  in  a  word,  to 
impart  "  freedom  of  will,"  and  make  man  a  blame-worthy 
creature,  is,  in  their  view,  one  of  the  great  and  blessed  results 
of  "the  grace  of  the  gospel!"      Wonderful  grace,  indeed, 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  69 

0 

which  takes  away  man's  just  and  righteous  excuse,  and  makes 
him  guilty  and  justly  condemned  !  But  it  is  not  true  that 
because  we  are  born  with  corruption  of  nature,  we  are  there- 
fore excusable  for  it.  This  notion  of  Arminians  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  common  sense  of  mankind.  We  often  say  of  a 
person  of  a  savage,  malicious,  murderous  disposition,  "  it  is 
just  like  him,  and  like  his  father  and  grandfather  before  him. 
They  were  always  naturally  a  brutal  and  ferocious  family. 
And  this  son  is  a  worthy  child  of  such  parents."  But  docs 
this  ever  strike  the  common  mind  as  a  sufficient  apology  for 
murder,  rape,  arson  ?  If  a  man  do  a  murderous  deed,  insti- 
gated by  a  cruel  and  revengeful  disposition,  we  make  no  in- 
quiry whence  he  derived  that  disposition,  or  what  it  was  that 
originated  his  murderous  choice.  And  the  more  determined 
and  impulsive  this  bent  of  the  will  for  murder,  the  more  atro- 
cious the  act,  even  though  he  developed  a  thirst  for  blood  in 
childhood  !  Such  is  the  common  judgment  of  all  mankind. 
The  disposition  may  have  been  transmitted  as  a  constitutional 
bias  from  father  to  son;  but  that  rather  aggravates  the  crime 
than  offers  an  apology  for  it.  Apply  the  same  reasoning  to 
the  inherited  depravity  of  our  fallen  nature.  "There  is  not," 
says  an  eloquent  writer^  "  a  more  effectual  way  of  bringing 
this  to  the  test  than  by  supposing  one  man  the  object  of  great 
provocation  and  injustice  from  another.  Let  a  neighbor  in- 
flict upon  you  some  moral  wrong.  Do  you  pause  to  inquire 
whence  he  has  derived  the  selfishness  or  the  malice  under 
which  you  suffer?  If  it  be  under  some,  necessity  which  vio- 
lates and  thwarts  his  disposition  to  do  you  a  kindness,  you 
feel  no  resentment,  no  spirit  of  retaliation.  But  if  he  be  in- 
cited by  the  strength  of  his  depraved  passions — say  a  ma- 
licious disposition  to  do  you  harm — so  far  from  this  furnish- 
ing an  apology,  you  feel  that  the  obstinate  tendency  <>r  bias 
of  his  will  to  injure  you,  only  adds  to  the  turpitude  of  his 
conduct.  The  more  hearty  the  will,  choice,  or  impulse  you 
saw  he  had  to  hurt  or  traduce  or  defraud  you,  the  more  would 


70  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

you  hold  him  to  be  the  culpable  subject  of  your  most  just  and 
righteous  indignation.*  This  is  unquestionably  the  only 
true  and  common  sense  view  of  the  subject.  The  stronger  a 
man's  bent  or  inclination  to  do  evil,  the  more  wicked  his  act. 
And  whether  this  inclination,  bent  or  bias  of  the  mind,  be 
derived  from  an  immediate  parent,  or  through  a  line  of 
twenty  generations  of  malicious  and  evil  disposed  ancestors, 
or  from  Adam  himself,  alters  not  the  nature  of  the  act.  That 
advocate  would  render  himself  ridiculous,  who  should  plead 
before  a  jury  for  the  acquittal  of  the  deliberate  murderer,  on 
the  ground  that  he  had  inherited  a  murderous  bias  from  his 
parents,  and  therefore  could  not  avoid  the  crime  !  If  these 
be  correct  conclusions,  they  invalidate  the  labored  disserta- 
tions of  Arminians,")"  on  the  subject  of  necessitated  will, 
coerced  volitions,  unavoidable  choice,  &c.  Mr.  Fletcher, 
though  not  often  very  discriminating,  caught  a  glimpse  of  the 
truth,  when  he  wrote  as  follows :  "  All  we  assert  is,  that 
whether  a  man  chooses  good  or  evil,  his  will  is  free,  or  it  does 
not  deserve  the  name  of  will."  And  he  afterward  quotes 
with  strong  approval  as  his  "  very  sentiments,"  the  follow- 
ing :  "  God  does  not  force  any  man  to  will  either  good  or 
evil ;  but  man,  through  the  corruption  of  his  understanding, 
naturally  and  freely  wills  that  which  is  evil."  J  This  is  sound 
doctrine,  but  modern  Arminians  utterly  reject  this  view. 
Man's  corruption,  they  tell  us,  destroys  his  "freedom  of 
will;"  his  inherited  depravity  is  attended  with  a  bias,  or  bent 
of  inclination  to  evil,  which  is  a  perfect  excuse  for  his  crimes, 
if  such  they  can  be  called  !  It  is  the  province  of  "  free 
grace"  to  disarm  corruption  of  its  power  in  all,  so  far  as  to 
make  them  sufficiently  free  to  become  guilty  and  righteously 
condemned  ! 

*  Abridged  from  Dr.  Chalmers  on  Rom.  5. 

f  The  Aruiinian  doctrine  is,  that  man's  natural  or  inherited  dopravity, 
corruption,  or  tondoney  to  sin,  destroys  his  liberty  and  would  make  him  ex- 
cusable, if  grace  had  not,  interfered  to  restore  his  "  free  will." 

X  See  his  fourth  Chock. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  71 

Messrs.  Simpson  and  Foster  labor  with  great  zeal  to  con- 
vict our  system  of  "  absolute  necessity,"  and  call  it  "  fate/' 
"blasphemy,"  "infinite  absurdity,"  &c.  They  ridicule  the 
idea  that  "motives  exercise  a  controlling  force  over  us."* 
"We  admit  that  the  word  force  might  be  understood  to  convey 
an  idea  altogether  inconsistent  with  freedom ;  for,  as  Fletcher 
truly  says,  "  will  is  free,  or  it  does  not  deserve  the  name  of 
will."  Yet  we  read  of  the  force  of  argument,  the  force  of  rea- 
soning, &c.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  motive  in 
connection  with  acts  of  the  mind  ?  Watson  defines  it :  "'Not 
physical  causes,  *  *  *  but  reasons  of  choice,  views  and  con- 
ceptions of  things  in  the  mind,  *  *  *  in  consideration  of 
which  the  mind  itself  wills  and  determines."}"  Very  well. 
But  do  not  motives,  i.  e.  reasons  of  choice,  views  and  concep- 
tions*' of  what  is  most  reasonable,  right,  fitting,  desirable 
— do  not  these  and  similar  reasons  "control,"  i.  e.  govern, 
determine,  decide  the  choice  of  the  mind.|  Certainly  they 
do  in  all  rational  beings.  The  opposite  is  true  only  in  the 
case  of  persons  who  have  been  deprived  of  reason  1  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson  have 
adopted  a  theory  of  will  which  suits  only  that  unfortunate 
class  of  beings  who  have  lost  the  balance  of  their  minds,  and 
whose  will  or  choice  is  not  " controlled  by  reason!"  The 
only  college  on  earth  where  this  sort  of  liberty  is  taught  and 
exemplified  in  its  perfection,  is  an  insane  asylum ;  for  only 
there  the  choice  or  preference  of  the  soul  is  governed  by  no 
"  reasons — no  views  and  conceptions"  of  what  is  right,  rea- 
sonable, rationally  desirable,  &c. !  There  the  inmates  decide 
without,  and  even  ayainst  reasons. 

The  doctrine  of  necessity,  i.  e.  of  the  certainty  that  the 
mind  will    act   in  a  particular  way  under    certain    circum- 

*  Objections,  Ac.  p.  228. 
f  Inst.  vol.  ii.  p.  440. 

+  Tlu<  motim  is  that,  particular  consideration  which  being  presented  to  tho 
mind  DETERMINES  it  to  act."— Moth.  Mag.  July,  1S39,  p.  259. 


72  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

stances,  is  simply  this — "Every  rational  and  well  balanced 
mind  will  certainly  and  freely  choose  that  which,  on  the 
whole,  under  any  given  circumstances  at  the  time  of  action, 
appears  to  its  reason  and  intelligence  to  be  fittest  and  best." 
The  strength  or  power  of  these  u  reasons,  vieivs  and  concep- 
tions" in  other  words,  of  these  motives,  is  so  far  from  de- 
stroying man's  liberty  of  will,  that  they  are  of  the  very 
essence  of  moral  freedom — for  without  such  reasons,  he  is 
insane  and  utterly  irresponsible !  It  is  obvious  then,  that 
volitions  are  not  necessitated,  except  in  the  sense  of  their 
future  certainty,  i.  e.  they  are  not  forced,  in  the  sense  of  con- 
straint or  compulsion.  "  The  idea  of  compelling  a  man  to  hate 
or  love  any  object,  is  perfectly  absurd.  *  *  *  That 
every  one  will  choose  that  which,  on  the  whole,  in  the  act  of 
choice,  he  prefers,  is  certain."  This  is  only  to  say  that  the 
mind  chooses  what  it  does  choose.  To  assert  that  the  mind 
chooses  in  any  act  of  will,  what  in  that  act  it  does  not  prefer, 
is  only  to  say  that  it  chooses  contrary  to  its  choice — which  is 
a  contradiction."  A  man  may,  indeed,  perform  external  ac- 
tions by  constraint,  i.  e.  contrary  to  his  preference  or  choice 
— but  that  is  another  thing  entirely. 

But,  say  Messrs.  Simpson  and  Foster  :  "  Is  not  every  man 
conscious  to  himself  that  his  former  course  of  (wicked)  con- 
duct might  have  been  different  from  what  it  was — that,  under 
precisely  the  same  circumstances,  his  volitions  and  acts  might 
have  been  different."*  In  the  sense  we  suppose  intended, 
this  is  not  denied.  The  whole  obscurity  arises  from  con- 
founding certainty  with  physical  necessity.  When  Calvinists 
speak  of  necessity  in  matters  of  the  will,  they  mean  certainty 
of  existence.  To  illustrate  the  importance  of  this  distinction, 
take  the  following  example  :  "  If  a  man  of  plain  sense  should 
be  informed  by  prophecy  that  he  would  certainly  kill  a  fellow- 
man  the  next  day  or  year,  and  that  he  would  be  actuated  by 
malice,  it  would  never  enter  his  mind  that  he  should  not  be 
*  Objections,  p.  230. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  73 

guilty  of  any  crime,  because  the  action  was  certain  before  it 
was  committed.  But,  if  you  change  the  terms  and  say  that 
he  would  be  under  a  necessity  to  perpetrate  the  crime  ;  that, 
being  absolutely  certain,  he  could  not  possibly  avoid  it ;  im- 
mediately the  subject  becomes  perplexed  and  involved  in  dif- 
ficulties— for  every  man  of  common  sense  feels  that  he  can- 
not be  justly  accountable  for  actions  which  he  could  not  ])ossibly 
avoid;  and  that,  for  what  he  does  from  absolute  necessity, 
he  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  culpable.  These 
terms  include  the  idea  of  a  compulsory  power  acting  upon  us, 
not  only  without,  but  in  opposition  to  our  own  will.  A 
necessary  event,  in  this  sense,  is  one  which  cannot  be  volun- 
tary or  free ;  for  if  it  were  spontaneous,  it  could  not  be  neces- 
sary ;  these  two  things  being  diametrically  opposite."  * 

Agreeably  to  this  reasoning,  a  voluntary  action  may  be  as 
certain  of  future  existence,  as  a  voluntary  action  that  has 
already  taken  place  is  certain  of  past  existence.  The  absolute 
certaint3r  of  David's  adultery,  for  example,  does  not  now 
forbid  its  being  a  voluntary  action ;  so,  neither,  did  the  abso- 
lute future  certainty  of  the  same  act  (or,  what  Calvinists 
mean  by  necessity  in  moral  things,)  forbid  its  being  voluntary 
and  blame-worthy,  though  infallibly  known  to  the  Divine 
mind  a  thousand  years  prior  to  its  commission,  or  even  from 
eternity. 

"A  voluntary  action  may  therefore  be  as  certainly  future 
as  any  other.  If  an  action  be  voluntary,  it  is  free,  and  the 
idea  of  a  necessary,  or,  as  Arminians  say,  a  necessitated  voli- 
tion, is  absurd  and  contradictory."  "j"  And  as  regards  the 
influence  of  a  natural  bias  or  bent  of  the  mind  to  destroy  its 
freedom,  no  one  can  doubt  that  in  the  holy  soul  of  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  this  bent  or  bias  to  virtue  and  holiness  was 
perfect,  unchangeable ;  and  his  will  infallibly  certain  as  that 
of  God  himself,  always  to  choose  in  one  way.     If  the  term 

*  Biblical  Repertory  for  1831,  pp.  159,  160. 
f  Ibid. 
7 


74  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

necessity  is  ever  allowable  when  speaking  of  the  will,  wo 
might  say  that  God  is  necessarily  holy  and  just  and  true  in 
all  his  volitions  and  actions — yet  such  a  use  of  the  term 
■would  be  obviously  improper,  if  anything  more  were  meant 
than  perfect  and  immutable  certainty  to  do  right. 

Every  one  is  familiar  with  the  fact  that  the  influence  of 
motives,  i.  e.  "reasons,  conceptions  or  views  in  the  mind," 
depends,  to  a  great  extent,  upon  the  temper  or  frame  of  tho 
mind  :  and  nothing  is  more  common  than  for  men  to  regulate, 
moderate,  and  by  long  practice  to  gain  the  mastery  over  per- 
verse tempers  and  inclinations.  If,  for  example,  the  temper 
of  the  soul  be  toward  the  indulgence  of  hatred  or"  malice 
against  a  neighbor  in  any  given  case,  a  very  small  and  trifling 
"  reason  or  conception  "  of  wrong  received,  will  lead  to  vio- 
lence and  even  to  murder — because  "  the  reason,"  in  that 
frame  of  the  soul,  appears  very  strong.  But  to  another  per- 
son, and,  indeed,  to  the  same  man  in  other  states  or  frames 
of  the  mind,  the  "  reason,"  and  of  course  the  act,  will  seem 
perfectly  contemptible,  and  he  will  be  amazed  at  his  own 
folly.  Now,  as  man  is  responsible  for  the  frame  or  temper 
of  his  soul,  which  often  makes  "  the  worse  appear  the  better 
reason,"  so  is  he  responsible  for  the  strength  or  "  controlling 
power  "  of  the  "  conception  "  or  motive  which  persuaded  him 
to  commit  any  crime — say  murder,  as  in  the  case  supposed. 

But,  replies  the  Arminian,  does  not  this  doctrine  suppose 
necessity,  i.  e.  that  man  acts  without  freedom  ?  Certainly 
not.  It  supposes  the  man  to  be  a  rational,  intelligent  being, 
liable,  indeed,  to  the  influence  of  bad  frames,  habits  or  tem- 
pers of  mind.  It  further  supposes,  not  that  he  always  acts 
under  the  impulse  of  "reasons"  which  are  really  the  wisest 
and  best,  but  he  acts  from  those  motives  which  at  the  mo- 
ment impress  him  as  the  best  and  most  fitting  under  all  the 
circumstances.  In  a  very  short  time,  indeed,  he  may  correct 
his  error  and  curse  his  folly,  because  the  frame  or  temper  of 
his  mind  having  changed,  "  the  reason  and  conception,"  i.  e. 


Let.  IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN.  75 

the  motive,  loses  its  persuasive  power.  But,  as  these  frames, 
habits  or  tempers  of  the  miud  form  the  ground-work  of  the 
■intentions,  they,  to  a  great  extent,  make  the  act  what  it  is  in 
morals. 

We  agree  with  Fletcher,  therefore,  that  to  talk  of  a  neces- 
sitated will  or  choice,  in  the  sense  of  co-action,  is  to  talk 
nonsense.  Such  a  use  of  the  terms  is  absurd — just  as  it 
would  be  to  talk  of  logical  affections,  or  a  round  square,  or  a 
dark  light,  or  a  loving  hatred,  or  any  other  absurd  collocation 
of  terms.  A  man  may  be  necessitated  to  a  bodily  action 
against  his  will  —  but  the  will  itself  is  of  its  own  nature 
always  free,  and  the  motives,  i.  e.  "the  reasons  or  concep- 
tions "  which  lead  to  choice,  are  essential  to  the  rational  na- 
ture of  the  mind — without  them  it  is  neither  sane  nor  morally 
responsible.  And  the  strength  of  these  motives  is  very 
much,  in  any  given  case,  what  a  man  makes  it. 

But  here  the  inquiry  may  arise  :  How  far  is  the  Divine 
Being  concerned  in  original  depravity  and  the  acts  which 
flow  from  it  ?  No  Calvinist  teaches  that  God  infuses  sin  into 
our  nature.  As  a  just  punishment  of  the  original  fall  of  ouf 
first  parents,  man  has  lost  original  righteousness — and  the 
consequence,  viz.  depravity  of  nature,  invariably  follows. 
This  was  true  of  Adam,  and  is  true  of  his  posterity — as  like 
produces  like.  And  as  regards  the  sinful  actions  —  say 
of  the  murderer  or  adulterer,  Wesley  makes  the  following 
distinctions  :  "  God  supplies  such  a  wicked  person  with  the 
power  to  act,  which  he  cannot  have  but  from  God ;  he  does 
this  knowing  what  he  (the  murderer)  is  about  to  do.  God, 
therefore,  produces  the  action  which  is  sinful.  It  is  his  work 
and  his  will  (for  he  works  nothing  but  what  he  wills),  and 
yet  the  sinfulness  of  the  act  is  neither  his  work  nor  will."  * 
Calvinists  take  no  stronger  ground  than  this. 

And  then,  as  regards  those  frames,  tempers  and  habits  of 
the  soul,  which  are  the  fruits  of  original  depravity  —  in  an- 
*  Original  Sin,  part  3,  sec.  7. 


76  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IV. 

swer  to  Dr.  John  Taylor's  inquiry — "  Can  those  propensities 
be  sinful,  which  are  neither  caused  nor  consented  to  by  me  ?  " 
Wesley  replies  :  "  Spite,  envy,  and  those  other  passions  and 
tempers  which  are  manifestly  discernible  even  in  little 
children,  are  certainly  not  virtuous,  not  morally  good.  And 
these  exist  before  they  are  consented  to,  &c.  '  Tempers  con- 
trary to  the  nature  and  law  of  God  are  natural,'  i.  e.  inherited 
as  part  of  our  nature.  These  tempers  do  exist  in  us  ante- 
cedent to  our  choice."  "Actual  sins,"  adds  Wesley,  "may 
proceed  from  a  corrupt  nature,  and  yet  not  be  unavoidable. 
But  if  actions  contrary  to  the  nature  of  God  were  unavoid- 
able^ it  would  not  follow  that  they  were  innocent."  *  In 
these  instances,  Mr.  Wesley  was  refuting  the  doctrines  of 
that  celebrated  Pelagian,  Taylor  of  Norwich,  who  bitterly 
denied  original  sin.  This  fact  accounts  for  these  and  similar 
statements  from  his  pen.  Messrs.  Simpson  and  Foster  would 
do  well  to  take  a  few  lessons  from  him  on  that  topic.  They 
would  thus  discover  that  they  agree  much  more  closely  with 
the  Pelagian  Taylor  than  with  Mr.  Wesley.  Far  from  him 
be  such  sentiments  as  the  following  :  "  Neither  are  they  to 
blame  for  this,  because  it  was  entirely  without  their  consent. 
They  were  born  corrupt,  and  so  cannot  be  guilty  for  that."  -j" 
Mr.  W.  refutes  with  great  force  of  logic,  the  same  sentiment 
expressed  by  Taylor,  in  pretty  much  the  same  words  !  What- 
ever may  have  been  his  errors,  Wesley  could  say  with  David 
and  others — '  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin 
did  my  mother  conceive  me."  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  neither  indeed 
can  be."  "And  we  (Christians)  were  by  nature  children 
of  wrath,  even  as  others."  This  is  not  the  language  of  men 
who  taught  —  "They  were  bom  corrupt,  and  therefore  could 
not  be  guilty  !  " 

These  are  strange   developments   in  Arminian    theology. 

*  Miso.  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  278. 

f  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  166. 


Let.  V.         FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  7T 

The  system  appears  to  be  passing  into  the  frozen  regions  of 
Pelagianism.  The  scraps  of  sound  doctrine  which  at  first 
adhered  to  it,  and  which,  like  salt,  for  a  time  preserved  the 
mass  from  putrefaction,  are  becoming  more  and  more  unpal- 
atable to  the  leaders.  If  they  continue  thus  to  "  walk 
in  the  counsel"  of  Pelagians,  and  "  stand  in  the  way"  of 
such  errorists  as  Taylor  of  Norwich,  they  may  soon  be  pre- 
pared to  "  sit  down  "  with  scorners  such  as  Belsham,  Priestley, 
et  id  genus  omne.  But  we  hope  better  things  of  Arminian 
Methodism,  though  we  thus  speak. 


LETTER    V. 

FOREKNOWLEDGE— PREDESTINATION. 

Rev.  Sir — The  volume  which  your  Book  Concern  has 
published  and  which  you  have  recommended  as  "  very  valu- 
able," "  of  great  merit,"  &c.  occupies  more  than  a  hundred 
pages  with  the  subject  of  "eternal  decrees,"  "election  and 
reprobation."  The  views  of  Presbyterians  are  caricatured  as 
follows  :  "The  doctrine  is,  that  God  decreed" — "  in  the  sense 
of  originator,  author  and  cause"  —  "whatsoever  comes  to 
pass" — "each  particular  sin  of  every  man."  "Murder,  rob- 
bery, blasphemy,  &c." — "  they  could  no  more  avoid  these 
crimes,  than  resist  the  fiat  of  Omnipotence" — "their  creation 
was  in  order  to  their  sins."  *  We  have  selected  these  items 
as  furnishing  a  comparatively  mild  statement  of  our  views, 
as  Messrs.  Simpson  and  Foster  understand  them. 

The  quotations  you  profess  to  make  from  certain  authors, 
in  order  to  fasten  upon  our  church  this  and  similar  blas- 
phemy, have  already  been  exposed  in  part ;  and,  in  general,  are 
much  in  the  style  of  your  favorite  tract:  "Dialogue  between 
a  Predestinarian  and  his  friend."  As  a  minute  examination 
*  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  31. 

7* 


78  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

of  the  extracts  professedly  given  by  Wesley,  the  author  of 
that  tract,  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix,  we  refer  the  reader 
to  it,  for  fair  specimens  of  Arminian  accuracy  and  reliable- 
ness in  matters  of  this  sort. 

The  great  theological  work  of  Calvin,  "  the  Institutes," 
has  always  been  one  of  the  principal  magazines  whence  have 
been  drawn  these  weapons  of  Arminian  warfare.  Yet  in 
publishing  this  work,  our  Board  of  Publication,  as  we  have 
shown,  make  several  distinct  exceptions  to  his  views,  espe- 
cially on  Reprobation.  Even  admitting,  therefore,  what  is 
far  from  the  truth,  that  Calvin's  views  are  correctly  stated  by 
our  Arminian  brethren,  how  absurd  in  them  to  employ  hun- 
dreds of  pages  in  contending  with  such  "a  man  of  straw  I"  If 
any  body  could  be  found  in  any  church  under  heaven,  will- 
ing to  father  the  sentiments  which  the  Bishop  charges  upon  us, 
Mr.  Foster's  book  might  possibly  be  of  some  use  in  that  partic- 
ular quarter!  But,  as  the  matter  now  stands,  every  well 
informed  Presbyterian  will  feel  only  amazement,  that  so  much 
good  paper  and  ink  have  been  worse  than  wasted  in  battling 
with  a  pure  figment.  We  repeat,  the  Supralapsarian  theory, 
grossly  caricatured  as  it  is  in  these  "  Objections  to  Calvin- 
ism," is  not  the  scheme  of  doctrine  held  by  the  Presbyterian 
church.  It  cannot  be  questioned  that  Turretine,  John  Owen, 
Jonathan  Edwards,  and  a  host  of  other  Calvinists,  have  al- 
ways been  admitted,  even  by  Arminians,  to  be  men  of  the 
first  order  of  genius.  And  they  all  agree  that  such  repre- 
sentations of  our  doctrines  as  we  have  quoted  from  your 
"  Objections,"  are  calumnies — that  "  God  is  not,  and  cannot 
be,  the  author  of  sin  ;"  and  they  express  with  Calvin  their 
"  deep  abhorrence  of  such  blasphemy."  *  No  wonder,  there- 
fore, that  in  attempting  to  fasten  such  blasphemous  senti- 
ments upon  Presbyterians,  the  Rev.  R.  S.  Foster  finds  "  great 
confusion,  perplexity  and  contradiction"  in  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine ;  but  he  humbly  hopes  it  will  not  be  charged  to  his 
*  Calvin's  Letter  to  Bullinger,  January,  1552. 


Let.  V.        FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  79 

"  willful  blindness  !"  *  No,  we  rather  think  Mr.  F.  did  the 
best  he  could.  But  intelligent  men  will  be  apt  to  suspect 
that  Mr.  F.  has  imagined  "  contradictions,"  only  because  he 
was  incapable  of  comprehending  the  scheme  of  Calvinism — 
of  tracing  its  logical  relations,  or  perceiving  its  legitimate 
results. 

With  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  take  up  a  second  source 
of  Arminian  Difficulties — that  mysterious  perfection  of  the 
Divine  nature,  according  to  which  "  known  unto  God  are  all 
his  works  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

II.  The  Difficulties  of  Arminian  Methodism  in  con- 
nection WITH  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DlVINE  FOREKNOW- 
LEDGE. 

The  Foreknowledge  of  God  seems  never  to  have  been  a 
favorite  in  the  body  of  divinity  current  among  Arminians. 
Long  before  the  days  of  Wesley,  such  early  anti-Calvinists 
as  Episcopius  and  others,  called  it  "  a  troublesome  question" 
— "  a  thing  disputable,  whether  there  be  any  such  thing  or 
not,  though  possibly  it  may  be  ascribed  to  God" — they  say, 
that  "it  were  better  it  were  quite  exploded,  because  the  dif- 
ficulties that  attend  it  can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  man's 
liberty" — and  that  "it  seems  rather  to  be  invented  to  cru- 
cify poor  mortals  than  to  be  of  any  moment  in  religion."  f 
So  also,  Vorstius,  another  great  prophet  of  their  own,  affirms 
"  that  God  oft  times  feareth,  suspecteth,  and  prudently  con- 
jectureth  that  this  or  that  evil  may  arise" — and  others,  "  that 
God  doth  often  intend  what  he  doth  not  foresee  will  come  to 
pass."  To  such  daring  extremes  were  these  men  driven  in 
their  zeal  to  set  aside  the  doctrine  of  Predestination. 

"  This  troublesome  question,"  appears  also  to  have  given 
no  small  annoyance  to  Mr.  Wesley.     He  seems  to  have  con- 

*  Objections,  p.  29. 

|  Dr.  Owen's  "  Display  of  Arminianbui,"  p.  71.     The  original  Latin  is 

tlicro  ijuoted. 


80  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

founded  Foreknowledge  with  Omniscience.  In  his  sermon 
on  Predestination  he  says,  "  If  we  speak  properly,  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  Foreknowledge  or  After-knowledge  in  God" 
— and  one  of  his  modern  disciples  adds  doubtfully,  "If  we 
may  apply  the  term  Foreknowledge  to  the  Deity."  We  are 
disposed,  however,  to  think  that  Peter  spoke  quite  as  "prop- 
erly" as  either,  when  he  said  "with  the  eleven,"  "Him  being 
delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of 
God,  ye  have  taken,  and  with  wicked  hands  have  crucified 
and  slain."  And  again,  1  Pet.  1:2,  "  Elect  according  to 
the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,"  &c.  The  founder  of 
Methodism  had  sufficient  discernment  to  perceive,  that  the 
fact  of  the  Divine  mind  comprehending  all  time  and  all  eter- 
nity at  one  glance,  and  as  present  in  one  view,  does  not  in 
the  least  relieve  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  subject  of 
Foreknowledge.  Hence  in  writing  to  Dr.  Robertson,  in  an- 
swer to  the  inquiry,  "  How  is  God's  foreknowledge  consist- 
ent with  our  freedom  ?"  he  candidly  replies,  "  I  cannot  tell."  * 
And  in  his  essay  on  Original  Sin  he  says,  "  My  understand- 
ing can  no  more  fathom  this  deep  (how  God  produces  the 
nature  which  is  sinful  without  willing  sin),  than  reconcile 
man's  free  will  with  the  foreknowledge  of  God."  j" 

The  atheistical  sentiments  above  quoted  from  the  early 
Arminians,  we  have  no  right  to  charge  upon  Bishop  S.  and 
his  brethren,  unless  they  avow  them.  Nor  will  Christian 
charity  permit  us  to  accuse  them  of  "duplicity"  and  "arti- 
fice," because  they  do  not  print  and  preach  such  "  strictly 
logical "  inferences  from  their  avowed  principles.  J  These 
logical  perplexities,  however,  which  candor  and  fairness  have 
extorted,  including  those  from  Wesley,  are  important.  It  is 
well  known  that  it  is  a  common  contrivance  of  his  followers 

*  Misc.  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  219. 
f  Ibid,  vol.  ii.  p.  277. 

J  We  leave  such  carnal  weapons  to  Bishop  S.  and  his  brethren  who  have 
published  such  tracts  as  "  Duplicity  Exposed,"  &c.  &c. 


Let.  V.        FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  81 

to  decry  and  denounce  Calvinism  on  this  identical  ground. 
"  It  is  impossible,"  they  say,  "  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  of 
decrees  with  man's  freedom ; "  and  they  are  exceedingly 
abundant  in  pointing  out  the  dreadful  consequences  which 
flow  from  this  alleged  fact,  and  in  showing  that  all  Presby- 
terians should  at  once  forsake  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  and 
come  over  to  the  Arminian  camp.  But  if  we  were  to  admit 
their  allegations  against  our  system  to  be  true  to  the  full  ex- 
tent, yet  the  question  returns — "  What  advantage  hath  the 
Arminian  ?  or  what  profit  is  there  in  Methodism  ?  "  Has 
not  your  "great  master  of  logic,"  as  you  call  him,  declared 
that  he  "  cannot  tell "  how  your  own  doctrine  of  Fore- 
knowledge can  be  reconciled  with  our  freedom  ?  First 
cast  out  this  beam  from  your  own  eye,  and  then  shall  you 
see  clearby  to  extract  the  mote  from  ours.  Honestly  show  us 
that  you  hold  and  teach  only  doctrines  which  can  be  main- 
tained consistently  with  human  liberty,  and  then  we  will  be- 
lieve you  sincere,  when  you  attempt  to  preach  down  Calvinism 
as  destructive  to  the  doctrine  of  man's  freedom  and  account- 
ability. 

The  Scriptures  are  so  express,  and  the  prophecies  are  so 
plain  and  form  so  essential  a  feature  of  Divine  revelation, 
that  modern  Arminians  have  not  been  able  to  resist  the  over- 
whelming evidence  of  the  infinite  foreknowledge  of  God. 
Hence,  in  a  leading  tract  they  say — "  To  know  is  so  essential 
to  God,  that  the  moment  he  ceases  to  know  all  that  is,  will  be, 
or  might  be,  under  any  possible  circumstances,  he  ceases  to  be 
God."  *  They  evidently  feel,  however,  that  such  a  statement 
is  attended  with  very  serious  embarrassments.  "  Should  it 
be  asked,"  inquires  another  of  their  ablest  writers,  "  how 
entire  freedom  of  action  agrees  with  this  knowledge,  I  answer, 
I  cannot  tell."  "  The  plain  truth  is,  the  subject  is  too  far 
removed  from  the  province  of  our  faculties  and  the  sphere  of 
human  science,  &c."  "  We  must  rest  till  it  shall  please  God 
*  Fisk  on  Predest  and  Election. 


82  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

to  develope  what  has  been  hitherto  locked  up  in  the  treasury 
of  eternal  wisdom."  * 

The  Gordian  knot  which  our  Arminian  brethren  find  so 
perplexing,  was  readily  solved,  or  rather,  was  rudely  cut  by 
Socinus  and  his  followers,  thus :  "  God  made  no  other  decree 
than  that  of  saving  such  as  believe,  obey  and  submit  to  the 
gospel.  These  things  depend  on  the  human  will  — what  de- 
pends on  the  will  is  uncertain  :  an  uncertain  object  cannot 
be  an  object  of  certain  knowledge  :  God  therefore  cannot  cer- 
tainly foresee  whether  my  condition  will  be  eternally  happy 
or  otherwise."  "j" 

Most  Arminians  of  the  present  day  will  agree  with  us  that 
this  is  stark  atheism !  Who  can  believe  in  a  God  who  every 
day  is  learning  something  new — who  is  ignorant  to-day  of 
what  will  occur  to-morrow  ? 

Again  :  In  speaking  of  "  human  or  contingent  actions," 
the  Methodist  Magazine  J  doubtfully  remarks — "■  If  God 
foresee  or  foreknow  them  at  all,  he  sees  them  just  as  they 
are."  "  He  sees  at  the  same  time  what  class  of  motives  or 
principles  will  preponderate,"  &c.  Exactly  so  —  but  where 
did  the  reviewer  learn  that  the  Calvinistic  system  "  con- 
founds"— "makes  no  distinction  between"  "foreknowledge 
and  decree  ? "  Any  Calvinist  who  should  broach  such  an 
absurdity,  would  hardly  be  considered  a  fit  candidate  for  a 
class  in  a  Sabbath  school.  There  are  indeed  some  Methodist 
authors  who  affect  to  see  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  freedom 
and  foreknowledge.  Mr.  Watson,  however,  candidly  admits 
that  "  this  forms  a  difficulty  " — for  example,  "how  to  recon- 
cile the  Divine  warnings,  exhortations  and  other  means  adopted 
to  prevent  the  destruction  of  individuals,  with  the  certain 
foresight  of  that  terrible  result."  "  In  the  case  of  man,"  he 
acknowledges,  "  the  infallible  prescience  or  foreknowledge  of 

*  Meth.  Mag.  vol.  iii.  p.  13. 
-)■  Saurin,  vol.  ii.  p.  108. 
X  For  July,  1839. 


Let.  V.         FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  83 

failure  would,  in  many  (all?)  cases,  paralyze  all  effort."* 
Nothing  was  ever  more  truly  said  —  and  if  he  had  only 
recalled  to  mind,  that  the  Armiuian  holds  it  as  an  essential 
feature  of  his  scheme,  necessary  to  shield  the  Divine  char- 
acter from  foul  and  blasphemous  aspersions  —  (viz.  ''insin- 
cerity," "crocodile  tears,"  &c.)  that  the  omniscient  God 
designed,  planned,  purposed  the  salvation  of  such  lost  ones 
and  expended  the  most  astonishing  and  inconceivable  means 
and  efforts  to  secure  this  end,  even  the  incarnation  and  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  his  eternal  Son  —  if  Mr.  Watson  had 
seriously  contemplated  how  unworthy  a  reflection  it  casts 
upon  the  all-wise  God,  to  employ  all  these  infinite  and  un- 
speakable means  to  secure  a  result  which  was  already  infi- 
nitely certain  not  TO  take  place  —  it  might  have  led  him 
wisely  to  caution  his  Methodist  brethren  against  the  suppo- 
sition that  their  scheme  of  doctrine  is  the  privileged  Goshen 
of  light,  while  all  around  hangs  Egyptian  darkness  !  We 
desire  to  speak  it  with  the  deepest  reverence  for  the  Divine 
character,  but  it  ought  not  to  be  disguised  that  Arminianism 
in  this  aspect  of  the  system,  represents  the  all-wise  Saviour 
as  suffering  and  dying  —  for  what?  why,  with  a  design  or 
intention  to  disappoint  his  own  infallible  foreknowledge .' 
Absit  blasphemia !  The  Socinian  boldly  cuts  this  knot  — 
"God  cannot  certainly  foresee  man's  voluntary  actions  or  his 
destiny  !  " 

The  pressure  which  all  intelligent  Arminians  feel  at  this 
point  of  their  system,  is  not  obscurely  indicated  by  their 
unavailing  struggles  to  relieve  it  from  its  difficulties. 

"Certainty,"  says  Watson,  "is  no  quality  of  an  action  at 
all ;  it  exists  properly  in  the  mind  foreseeing  and  not  in  the 
action   foreseen."     "  When,  therefore,  it  is  said,  what  God 

*  Theol.  Inst,  part  2,  ch.  4.  The  extreme  caution  of  some  Arminian 
authors  on  this  subject,  is  curious:  "Did  not  God  foreknow  who  would 
reject  the  gospel  and  be  lost?  We  presume  he  did!"  Porter's  Com- 
pendium, p.  231. 


84  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

foresees  will  certainly  happen,  nothing  more  can  be  reasonably 
meant  than  that  He  is  certain  that  it  will  happen ;  so  that  we 
must  not  transfer  the  certainty  from  God  to  the  action  itself." 

This  is  ingenious,  but  sophistical.  It  is  not  true,  as  Wat- 
son affirms,  that  the  proposition — "What  God  foresees  will 
certainly  happen" — can  mean  no  more  than  that  He  is  cer- 
tain it  will  happen.  That  is  all  that  the  proposition  refers  to 
God — but  a  very  little  reflection  will  satisfy  any  one  that 
the  terms  have  also  a  direct  reference  to  the  nature  and  exist- 
ence of  the  action  itself.  "Certainty"  is  as  really  "a  quality 
of  an  action,"  as  uncertainty  or  contingency,  which  are  es- 
sential to  the  notion  of  Arminian  liberty. 

To  make  this  obvious,  we  will  take  the  example  of  David's 
murder  in  "  the  matter  of  Uriah."  No  one  will  question 
that  now  that  wicked  act  is  infallibly  certain  —  a  fixed  fact, 
so  that  the  proposition  which  affirms  its  past  existence,  is  in- 
fallibly true ;  so  true  that  no  mathematical  axiom  can  be 
more  so ;  true  as  that  twice  two  are  not  twenty  ;  and  true 
apart  from  the  -perception  of  its  truth  by  any  mind.  This 
we  think  no  Arminian  will  hesitate  to  concede. 

But  there  was  a  period,  a  thousand  or  ten  thousand  years 
before  David's  crime,  when  it  was  just  as  infallibly  known  to 
the  Infinite  mind,  as  it  is  now.  No  one  can  doubt  this.  At 
that  period,  the  proposition  which  affirmed  the  future  exist- 
ence of  David's  act  of  murder  was  just  as  infallibly  true, 
apart  from  any  perception  of  its  truth,  as  the  other  which 
now  affirms  its  past  existence.  And  if  we  suppose  God  to 
have  communicated  the  knowledge  of  that  act  to  the  angels 
a  thousand  years  before  it  took  place,  they  would  have  felt 
that  its  certainty  was  an  infallible  feature  of  David's  exist- 
ence, but  in  no  way  dependent  on  their  perception  of  the 
truth — in  other  words,  its  certainty  of  future  existence  be- 
longed to  the  act,  not  to  their  mental  perception  of  the  act. 
And  if,  for  any  period  within  the  one  thousand  years  antece- 
dent to  David's  existence,  we  were  to  adopt  Dr.  Clarke's  no- 


Let.  V.        FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  85 

tion  —  suppose  it  possible  for  the  Divine  Being,  say  for  twenty- 
four  hours,  "  to  choose  not  to  foreknow  "  David's  crime,  would 
there  be  no  certainty  of  its  future  existence  for  the  same 
length  of  time  ?  Or  now  that  the  act  is  done,  suppose  it 
possible  that  God  for  one  year  should  "  choose  not  to  know  " 
it,  would  its  certainty  then  cease  ?  So  it  would  seem,  if 
Watson  is  correct.  These  statements,  if  we  mistake  not, 
show  conclusively  that  there  is  a  certainty  of  existence  and 
of  truth,  which  belongs  to  morals  as  well  as  mathematics, 
and  which  is  altogether  distinct  from  the  certainty  of  percep- 
tion in  the  mind  which  conceives  the  truth  or  foresees  a  fu- 
ture moral  act,  so  that  the  certainty  belongs  not  so  much  to 
the  mind  as  to  the  act  itself. 

It  appears  demonstrable,  therefore,  that  the  infallible  fore- 
knowledge of  God  implies  the  infallible  certainty  of  the 
future  existence  of  that  which  is  foreknown.  Of  course,  we 
cannot  suppose  the  future  volitions  of  moral  agents,  known 
as  they  are  to  God  with  perfect  distinctness  and  with  all 
their  circumstances,  to  be  uncertain.  This  would  be  to  say 
that  he  certainly  knows  an  event  will  infallibly  be,  while  at 
the  same  time  he  knows  it  to  be  so  uncertain  that  it  may  not 
be,  i.  e.  he  knows  that  he  may  be  mistaken  !  In  other  words, 
he  knows  the  proposition  which  affirms  the  future  existence 
of  an  event,  to  be  certainly  true  ;  and  yet  he  knows  the  same 
proposition  to  be  so  uncertain  that  it  may  be  untrue  !  If 
the  event  be  indeed  uncertain  that  "is  known  to  the  Divine 
mind,  how  then  can  he  know  it  to  be  certainly  future  ?  Of 
course,  his  foreknowledge  would  be  mere  conjecture  !  For 
how  can  he  know  the  certainty  of  an  event,  and  at  the  same 
time  know  its  uncertainty  ? 

But,  replies  the  Arminian,  "  God's  foreknowledge  can  have 
no  more  influence  in  causing  an  event,  say  the  sinner's  im- 
penitence and  ruin,  than  our  after-knowledge."     "  To  foresee 
an  event  does  not  cause  it  to  take  place."  *     Very  true  ;   no 
•  Compendium  of  Meth.  p.  222.    Moth.  Mag.  July,  1839. 

8 


86  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

Presbyterian  will  dispute  that  point.  Foreknowledge  in  God 
proves,  not  causes,  the  certainty  of  the  event  foreknown.  All 
infallible  knowledge,  whether  it  be  foreknowledge  or  after- 
knowledge,  demonstrates  the  thing  known  to  be  infallibly 
certain,  i.  e.  that  the  event,  action,  volition,  perfectly  does 
or  will  correspond  with  the  knowledge.  Such  is  the  infallible 
truth  in  the  case.  Knowledge  is  founded  in  certainty ;  but 
the  cause  of  the  certainty  is  another  matter,  and  not  now 
under  consideration.  We  maintain,  and  we  trust  have  proved, 
that  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  infinite  foreknowledge  in  God, 
carries  with  it  and  demonstrates  the  infallible  certainty  of  all 
the  future  volitions  and  moral  conduct  of  men ;  unless  God 
may  mistake  and  his  knowledge  be  mere  conjecture.  The 
same  certainty  attends  the  doctrine  of  Decrees ;  they  render 
the  free  evil  actions  of  men  certain,  but  exert  no  causative 
or  compulsory  influence.  Man,  as  a  moral  agent,  performs 
all  his  actions  in  connection  with  the  all-wise  and  perfect^cm 
of  the  Infinite  One.  But  God  is  not  the  author  of  his  evil 
actions,  except  as  before  explained  by  Wesley,  viz.  "  He  sup- 
plies the  power  whereby  the  sinful  action  is  done.  God, 
therefore,"  he  adds,  "  produces  the  action  which  is  sinful.  It 
is  his  work  and  his  will  (for  he  works  nothing  but  what  he 
wills).  And  yet  the  sinfulness  of  the  action  is  neither  his 
work  nor  will."  *  This  is  sound  Calvinism,  understanding 
by  the  term  "  will"  God's  efficient  design  or  purpose.  Yet 
we  cannot  deny,  if  we  believe  the  Scriptures,  that  God  also 
restrains,  bounds,  governs  and  directs  the  evil  actions  of  the 
wicked  for  the  wisest  and  holiest  ends  and  objects;  although 
they  think  not  so,  but  have  far  other  objects  in  view.  Thus, 
in  the  case  of  the  crucifixion  of  Christ — "  he  was  delivered 
by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God ;  yet 
was  by  wicked  hands  crucified  and  slain." 

Take  another  view  of  the  connection  of  foreknowledge  with 
the  certainty  of  future  events.     There  must  be  a  certainty  in 
*  Original  Sin,  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  277. 


Let.  V.        FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  87 

things  themselves,  to  he  the  ground  of  their  hcing  certainly 
known.  For  how  is  it  possible  infallibly  to  know  or  discern 
the  certainty  of  things  or  events,  if  there  be  no  certainty  in 
those  events  to  form  the  ground  of  this  certain  knowledge  ? 
Wo  admit,  therefore,  that  "  the  Divine  foreknowledge  does 
not  cause  the  event ;"  and  taking  Dr.  Fisk's  view,  that  "  God 
knows  an  event,  because  it  is  certain,"  *  this  only  more  plainly 
proves  the  certainty  of  that  event.  "  It  demonstrates  the 
existence  of  the  event  to  be  so  settled,  that  it  is  as  if  it  had 
already  been,  inasmuch  as  in  effect  it  already  exists ;  it  has 
already  had  actual  influence  and  efficiency,  viz.  to  produce  the 
effect  of  infallible  prescience.  And  as  the  effect  supposes 
the  cause,  it  is  as  if  the  event  had  already  an  existence.""}" 
Thus,  then,  if  "  God  knows  events  because  they  are  certain," 
as  Dr.  Fisk  affirms,  then  he  knows  all  the  future  volitions 
and  free  acts  of  men,  "because  they  are  certain;"  of  course, 
God's  infallible  foreknowledge  proves  or  rather  assumes  that 
those  volitions  are  infallibly  certain  to  take  place.  But  here 
Dr.  F.  comes  in  direct  conflict  with  Watson,  who  says  :  "We 
must  not  transfer  the  certainty  from  God  to  the  action  itself 
*     *     "in  any  sense."  J 

Much  of  the  obscurity  and  perplexity  which  Arminians 
find  in  this  subject,  is  owing  to  their  peculiar  notions  of  the 
true  nature  of  liberty.  They  say  freedom  implies  a  self- 
determining  power,  by  which  the  mind  in  the  exercise  of 
choice,  or  the  faculty  of  willing,  determines  its  own  acts ;  and* 
this  exercise  of  self-determination  is  essential  to  the  freedom 
of  the  act.  But  this  self-determining  exercise  of  will,  is 
itself  an  act  of  will ;  and  in  order  to  be  free  it  must  also  flow 
from  a  previous  exercise  of  self-determination,  and  that  from 
a  previous  self-determination,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  So 
chat  if  we  ascend  to  the  first  free  act,  there  must  still  be 

*  Discourse  on  Predest  p.  6.     Tract  No.  131. 
f  Edwards  on  the  Will,  part  2,  sec.  12. 
X  Thool.  Inst  vol.  ii.  p.  430. 


88  DIFFICULTIES   OF  AKMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

a  self-determination,  or  free  act  of  the  will,  to  make  that  first 
act  a  free  act;  which  involves  the  contradiction  of  an  act  of 
the  will  before  the  first  act. 

So  also,  their  strange  notion  that  liberty  of  the  will  implies 
indifference,  or  entire  freedom  from  antecedent  bias.  Of 
course,  the  idea  of  the  mind  acting  from  its  vieics  of  the 
strongest  reasons  of  choice,  its  perceptions  of  the  greatest 
good,  and  being  directed  by  such  motives  as  these  in  its 
choice,  is  with  them  absurd;  for  they  hold  that  any  bias  of 
this  sort  destroys  freedom  !  The  mind  must  be  able  by  some 
act  or  exertion  of  its  inherent  power,  to  put  itself  in  a  state 
of  indifference  ;  and  then  in  that  state  it  can  perform  free  acts, 
i.  e.  it  can  choose  against  its  perception  of  the  strongest  rea- 
sons, or  without  any  reasons,  or  any  other  bias.  But  this  is 
surely  very  self-contradictory ;  for  President  Edwards  has 
clearly  demonstrated  that  as  every  free  act  must  be  performed 
in  a  state  of  freedom,  the  Arminian  notion  that  freedom  of 
the  will  implies  indifference,  leads  to  the  gross  absurdity  that 
the  soul  chooses  one  thing  rather  than  another,  at  the  very 
time  that  it  has  no  preference  or  choice ;  or  that  there  may 
be  choice,  while  there  is  no  choice. 

Edwards  has  also  demonstrated  that  the  idea  of  contingence 
as  understood  by  Arminians  to  belong  to  the  actions  of  men, 
excludes  all  connection  between  cause  and  effect  (in  reference 
to  this  matter),  and  supposes  many  events  to  take  place  with- 
out any  ground  or  reason  of  their  occurring  rather  than  their 
not  occurring.  And  that  to  suppose  the  Divine  Being  to 
have  infallible  foreknowledge  of  the  volitions  of  men,  while 
there  is  no  ground  or  reason  of  their  existence  rather  than 
their  non-existence,  is  to  suppose  him  to  know  without  evi- 
dence, or  to  know  a  thing  certainly  which  is  uncertain;  or 
to  know  the  certainty  of  an  event,  while  at  the  same  time  he 
knows  its  uncertainty  I  Truly,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  Wes- 
ley "  could  not  tell"  how  to  reconcile  foreknowledge  with  this 
strange  mass  of  contradictions. 


Let.  V.        FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  89 

Again  :  u  If  an  event  be  certainly  foreknown,  it  must  have  a 
certain  future  existence,  of  which  certain  existence  there 
must  be  some  reason  or  ground.  For  as  every  free  agent  has 
the  liberty  of  acting  or  not,  or  of  performing  a  different 
action  from  the  one  which  he  eventually  performs,  if  there 
existed  no  reason  why  the  one  took  place  and  not  the  other, 
all  knoiolcxhje  of  the  action  before  it  occurs  is  necessarily 
excluded.  It  would  be  to  suppose  knowledge  without  the 
least  foundation  for  that  knowledge  in  the  object.  God  can- 
not know  that  something  exists  where  there  is  nothing. 
God  cannot  see  that  an  effect,  yet  future,  will  certainly  be  pro- 
duced, if  he  does  not  know  any  cause  of  its  existence."  (Bib. 
Repertory,  vol.  iii.  1831.)  If  it  be  alleged  that  there  is  no 
other  ground  or  reason  of  the  future  existence  of  the  event 
necessary  to  be  supposed,  in  order  to  infallible  foreknowledge, 
than  the  free  agency  of  the  creature,  it  is  the  same  as  to  say 
that  it  is  infallibly  known  that  a  creature  will  choose  or 
prefer  one  course  of  action  before  another,  because  he  is  at 
liberty  to  choose  either;  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  will  cer- 
tainly, in  a  given  case,  choose  to  act  in  a  particular  manner, 
because  he  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  choose  to  act  in  the  directly 
opposite  manner,  which  is  absurd.  If  there  be  such  a  thing 
as  Arminian  liberty,  it  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  there  can 
be  no  such  attribute  of  the  Divine  mind,  as  infallible  and 
universal  foreknowledge.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  admit 
with  the  Scriptures  the  doctrine  of  Foreknowledge,  it  destroys 
for  ever  the  baseless  fabric  of  Arminian  freedom. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  doctrine  of  Fore- 
knowledge should  be  in  no  very  good  odor  with  our  Method- 
ist brethren.  This  is  inferrible,  among  other  reasons,  from 
the  fact,  that  their  Articles  and  Book  of  Discipline  are 
entirely  silent  upon  the  subject;  nor  is  it  any  where  noticed 
in  a  volume  of  240  pages,  professing  to  be  an  exhibition  of 
the  faith  of  Christians.  It  is  said,  indeed,  that  the  book 
mentions  the  Divine  wisdom,  which  includes  foreknowledge ; 
8* 


90  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

but  if  men  who  "  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost"  make  a  distinction  between  these  perfections  of  God, 
and  give  to  each  its  separate  place  and  prominence  in  their 
system,  it  would  be  both  safe  and  modest  not  to  attempt  to 
improve  upon  their  divinity. 

Another  most  conclusive  proof  that  Arminians  are  sorely 
perplexed  with  such  subjects  as  Foreknowledge,  freedom 
the  will,  &c.  is  found  in  their  misstatements  of  the  views  of 
Calvinists.  For  example,  Watson,  one  of  their  best  informed 
writers,  expounds  the  views  of  President  Edwards  as  follows  : 
"The  notion  inculcated  is,  that  motives  influence  the  will, 
just  as  an  additional  weight  thrown  into  an  even  scale  poises 
it  and  inclines  the  beam.  This,"  he  adds,  "  is  the  favorite 
metaphor  of  the  necessitarians,  *  *  *  representing  the 
will  to  be  as  passive  as  the  balance;  or  in  other  words,  *  * 
annihilating  the  distinction  between  mind  and  matter."* 
And  in  destroying  this  baseless  fabric  of  his  own  raising,  he 
speaks  of  "  the  mind  being  obliged  to  determine  by  the 
strongest  motive,  as  the  beam  is  to  incline  by  the  heaviest 
weight."  But  this  is  a  gross  caricature  of  Edwards'  views. 
"All  allow"  says  Edwards,  "that  natural  (or  physical)  im- 
possibility wholly  excuses.  *  *  *  As  natural  impossi- 
bility wholly  excuses  and  excludes  all  blame,  so  the  nearer 
the  difficulty  approaches  to  impossibility,  the  nearer  the  person 
is  to  blamelessness."  f  These  and  similar  statements  stand 
on  the  page  next  to  that  where  he  uses  the  illustration  of  the 
scale  or  balance.  He  supposes  it  to  be  "  intelligent,"  and 
employs  it  merely  to  explain  by  the  metaphor  of  weights 
cast  into  the  scale,  how  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  physical 
difficulty  implies  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  blamelessness  ! 
Thus,  the  doctrine  of  Edwards  is  plainly  this :  that  if  there 
were  any  such  physical  necessity  or  force  exerted  upon  the 
will,  as  the  weight  upon  the  balance,  man  would  be  wholly 

*  lust  vol.  ii.  p.  440. 

f  On  the  Will,  part  3,  see  3. 


Let.  V.         FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  91 

without  blame  !  Yet  Watson  has  the  hardihood  to  charge 
him  with  the  monstrous  notion  that  the  will  is  governed  by 
motives,  just  as  the  material  scale  is  moved  by  weights  1  Was 
there  ever  a  more  gross  and  palpable  misstatement  ? 

Following  such  a  brilliant  example,  Messrs.  Simpson  and 
Foster  use  a  similar  illustration :  "  The  water  must  run 
through  the  water-course ;  the  wheel  must  turn  under  the 
force  of  the  current.  *  *  *  The  movements  of  the  mind 
are  as  absolutely  fixed  and  rigidly  necessary  as  the  movements 
of  the  material  creation,  *  *  *  when  Omnipotence  urges 
it  forward  !  "  *  This,  Arminians  say,  is  the  Calvinistic  and 
Edwardean  doctrine  of  the  influence  of  motives  upon  the  will ! 
Yet,  as  we  have  just  shown,  and  as  any  person  of  common 
sense  may  read  for  himself,  President  Edwards  argues  at 
length  to  prove  that  such  a  doctrine  entirely  exciises  the  sinner 
from  blame  !  f  And  even  Dr.  Fisk  takes  up  the  same  tale  : 
"  Dr.  Edwards,"  he  tells  us,  "  compares  our  volitions  to  the 
vibrations  of  a  scale  beam.  *  *  *  What  is  this  but 
teaching  that  motions  of  mind  are  governed  by  the  same 
fixed  laws  as  those  of  matter,  and  that  volitions  are  perfectly 
mechanical  states  of  mind."  J  Thus  they  charge  upon  Ed- 
wards the  very  doctrine  which  he-  laboriously  refutes;  and 
then  boast  over  it,  as  though  they  had  achieved  a  great  victory  ! 

But  what  are  these  wonderful  and  almost  omnipotent  things 
called  motives,  which,  we  are  told,  work  the  mind  or  will,  as 
the  Almighty  Power  moves  the  material  creation  ?  Watson 
says  they  are  "  reasons  of  choice,  views  and  conceptions  of 
things  in  the  mind,  *  *  *  in  consideration  of  which 
the  mind  itself  wills  and  determines."  §  But  if  this  defini- 
tion be  correct — and  it  is  sufficiently  so  for  all  practical  pur- 
poses— how  is  it  possible  the  mind  or  will  should  be  "  worked 

*  Objections,  Ac.  pp.  237,  238. 

f  See  the  part  and  section  before  quoted. 

X  Fisk,  quoted  by  Foster,  p.  242. 

\  Institutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  440. 


92  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

as  a  machine"  by  its  own  "reasons  of  choice,  its  views  and 
conceptions  of  things  ?  "  For  example,  an  impenitent  person 
chooses  a  present  wordly  good  in  preference  to  future  eternal 
happiness,  which  is  distant  and  not  so  certainly  in  his  power. 
His  "  views  and  conceptions  "  of  the  present  good  are  such 
that,  like  the  wine  cup  of  the  intemperate,  they  present  to 
his  mind  stronger  "  reasons  of  choice "  than  the  distant 
future  presents.  Of  course  he  chooses  the  present  good,  and 
refuses  the  future  happiness.  But  is  there  any  thing  in  this 
mental  operation  bearing  the  most  distant  resemblance  to  the 
"  vibratory  movement  of  a  balance  "  under  the  motive  power 
of  a  weight  ?  or  any  thing  like  the  power  of  Omnipotence 
urging  the  will  to  act  ?  How  strange  the  misrepresentation  ! 
Arminians  must  be  hard  pressed  in  argument  before  they  de- 
scend to  such  subterfuges. 

A  similar  series  of  misstatements  is  attached  to  the  doctrine 
of  "necessity,"  as  held  and  taught  by  Calvinists,  in  its  rela- 
tions to  Divine  Foreknowledge.  Thus  we  are  told — "  The 
connection  between  the  volition  and  the  strongest  motive  is 
as  absolute  and  necessary  as  the  connection  between  any 
cause  (even  the  will  of  God,)  and  its  effect."  And  we  have 
large  discourse  about  "  the  mind  whose  determinations  are 
absolutely  fixed  by  the  force  of  motives " — "  required  to 
overcome  Omnipotence  itself,"  which  is  the  cause  of  the 
necessity — "a  doctrine  of  necessity,  which  requires  man  to  do 
what  is  absolutely  impossible  —  what  Grod  himself  cannot  do, 
for  He  cannot  work  impossibilities."  *  And  even  Bishop 
Simpson,  in  his  introduction  to  Foster's  work,  speaks  of  the 
"doctrine  of  necessity"  as  opposed  to  "the  freedom  of  the 
human  will,  &c." 

But  what  says  President  Edwards  in  defining  the  term  ne- 
cessity ?  As  used  by  himself  and  other  Calvinists  in  these 
discussions,  he  expressly  says  he  means  "  nothing  different 
from  certainty."  And  be  adds  :  "  I  speak  not  now  of  the 
*  Foster's  Objections,  chap.  8, and  in  numerous  other  plauos. 


Let.  V.        FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION".  03 

certainty  of  knowledge,  but  the  certainty  that  is  in  things 
themselves,  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  certainty  of 
knowledge ;  or  that  (certainty)  wherein  lies  the  ground  of 
the  infallible  truth  of  the  proposition  which  affirms  them."  * 
But  according  to  this  definition,  every  prophecy  of  the 
Scriptures  produces,  or  at  least  proves  the  infallible  necessity 
(i.  e.  certainty,)  of  the  event  predicted  ?  Such  were  the 
incarnation,  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  &c.  All  these 
events  were  infallibly  necessary,  or  certain  to  take  place,  as 
Edwards  and  other  Calvinists  understand  the  term.  Armin- 
ians  themselves  dare  not  question  the  truth  of  these  state- 
ments. 

But  how  do  such  authors  as  Watson,  Fisk,  Simpson  and 
Foster  dispose  of  such  facts  as  these  ?  Here,  for  example,  is 
a  formal  definition  given  by  Edwards  at  the  opening  of  his 
immortal  work  on  the  Will,  and  observed  cautiously  through- 
out, whenever  he  has  occasion  to  speak  of  necessity.  How 
do  these  Arminians  escape  from  such  a  predicament  and  man- 
age to  patch  up  their  argument?  Why,  they  say  Edwards 
and  other  Calvinists  must  mean  by  necessity  "  a  power  not 
different  from  the  law  of  gravitation  or  magnetic  attraction  " 
— "  from  the  (Calvinistic)  theory,  inertia  becomes  the  law 
of  mind  as  of  matter."  "  Fate  runs  through  all."  Such, 
they  say,  "  is  the  supreme  controlling  power  of  Dr.  Edwards 
and  his  followers."  f  So  that  when  Edwards  demonstrates 
that  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  and  other  great  events 
predicted  in  the  Scriptures,  were  necessary,  or  certain  to  take 
place,  these  Arminians  say  he  meant  they  were  predicted  to 
take  place  under  some  such  influence  as  the  law  of  gravitation, 
some  physical  force  or  compulsion,  which  the  Jews,  who, 
"  with  wicked  hands,  crucified  and  slew  the  Lord  of 
glory,"  could  no  more  resist  than  they  could  resist  the  laws 
of  the  planetary  worlds  !     Did  human  weakness  ever  concoct 

*  Ou  the  Will,  part  1,  sec.  3. 

|  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  240,  et  alibi. 


94  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

a  more  humiluting  tissue  of  strange  blunders  !  And  to 
crown  the  whole,  these  Arininians  have  published,  and  thus 
sanctioned,  Dr.  Fisk's  statements — "  whatever  Glod  fore- 
knows will  undoubtedly  (or  certainly)  come  to  pass."  "  It 
is  not  at  all  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  certainty  of  an 
event  can  beget  knowledge "  (or  foreknowledge).  "  God 
knows  an  event  to  be  certain  because  it  is  certain."  *  Thus 
they  have  unwittingly  incorporated  in  their  creed  the  very 
"  doctrine  of  necessity  "  (or  certainty)  which  is  so  carefully 
defined  by  Edwards.  Edwards  himself  does  not  state  more 
clearly  than  Dr.  Fisk  the  infallible  future  certainty  (or  ne- 
cessity) of  all  foreknown  events,  including  all  the  acts  of 
the  human  will ! 

To  render  these  Arminian  misstatements  the  more  wonder- 
ful, Edwards  not  only  defines  with  great  care  the  Calvinistic 
use  of  the  term  necessity,  in  discussions  about  the  will,  but  he 
largely  explains  the  distinction  between  natural  (or  physical) 
necessity  and  moral  necessity.  So  far  from  representing  the 
will  to  be  "  passive  as  the  material  balance,"  "obliged  to  deter- 
mine by  the  heaviest  weights"  &o.  as  Watson  and  others 
allege,  he  minutely  defines  what  Calvinists  mean  by  moral 
causes,  such  as  "  the  strength  of  inclination,  habits  aud  dis- 
positions of  the  heart,  moral  motives  and  inducements  " — 
and  he  particularly  distinguishes  this  sort  of  certainty  of 
effect  and  result,  from  "  the  natural  necessity  by  which  men's 
bodies  move  downward  when  not  supported."  f  Yet  these 
Arminian  writers  charge  him  with  holding  a  necessity  "  not 
different  from  that  arising  from  the  law  of  gravitation" — the 
very  thing  which  he  cautiously  and  expressly  disclaims  ! 

To  make  his  meaning  most  evident,  Edwards  uses  such 
illustrations  as  these  :  "  A  child  of  great  love  and  duty  to 
his  parents,  may  have  a  moral  inability  to  kill  his  father ;  or 
a  woman  of  virtue  to  prostitute  herself  to  her  slave."     In 

*  Meth.  Tract,  No.  131,  pp.  T,  8. 
■J-  On  the  Will,  part  1,  sec.  4. 


Let.  V.         FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  95 

these  cases  they  act  under  what  he  means  hy  "  a  moral  neces- 
sity," l.  e.  a  certainty  of  such  results  under  such  circumstances 
— a  certainty  of  such  effects  from  such  causes.  "  It  cannot 
be  truly  said,  according  to  the  ordinary  use  of  language," 
adds  Edwards,  "  that  a  malicious  man,  let  him  be  never  so 
malicious,  cannot  hold  his  hand  from  striking;  or  that  a 
drunkard,  let  his  appetite  be  never  so  strong,  cannot  keep  the 
cup  from  his  mouth."  These  examples  are  of  external  acts 
—  but  he  adds,  "it  is  more  evidently  false  that  such  person 
is  unable  to  exert  the  acts  of  the  will,  *  *  for  the  very 
willing  is  the  doing.  *  *  In  these  mental  acts,  to  ascribe 
the  non-performance  to  the  want  of  power  or  ability  is  not 
just,  *  *  for  he  has  the  faculties  of  mind  and  a  capacity 
of  nature,  and  every  thing  else  sufficient  but  a  disposition  — 
nothing  is  wanting  but  a  will,"  or  a  willingness  in  order  to 
the  mental  act.  Is  this  the  same  as  to  say  that  man  lies 
under  a  necessity  like  that  which  "  sways  the  beam  when 
moved  by  the  heaviest  weight  ?  "  If  a  man  hates  his  neigh- 
bor so  bitterly  that  he  cannot  love  him,  is  he  therefore  a  mere 
machine  —  is  he  excusable,  just  as  if  he  were  impelled  by  the 
hand  of  Omnipotence  —  excusable,  just  as  really  as  the  sinking 
of  the  balance  under  the  weight  ?  This  is  Arminian  doctrine, 
but  not  that  of  Calvinists. 

Edwards  still  more  fully  explains  his  meaning  when  he 
comes  to  speak  of  Foreknowledge.  One  of  his  sections  bears 
the  title  :  "  Foreknowledge  infers  necessity."  "  I  allow," 
he  says,  "  that  mere  knowledge  does  not  affect  the  thing 
known  to  make  it  more  certain ;  but  I  say,  it  supposes  and 
proves  the  thing  to  be  already  both  future  and  certain." 
Again  :  "  There  must  be  a  certainty  in  things  themselves, 
before  they  are  certainly  known;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
known  to  be  certain."  This  is  the  kind  of  "necessity" 
which  he  advocates,  viz.  the  certainty  of  events.  How  it 
ever  entered  the  brain  of  Arminians  to  charge  him  and  other 
Calvinists  with  teaching   a  "necessity"  such   as   moves  the 


96  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  V. 

planets  in  their  orbits,  is  a  mystery  which  we  leave  others 
fully  to  explain.  What  will  not  men  sometimes  do,  when 
hard  pressed  in  argument ! 

But  the  embarrassments  felt  by  Arminians  when  they  are 
pressed  with  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Foreknowledge,  are  abun- 
dantly evident  in  the  curious  figment  adopted  by  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  the  commentator.  In  his  headlong  zeal  to  extermi- 
nate the  doctrine  of  Predestination,  he  was  forced  into  the 
denial  of  a  Divine  attribute  every  where  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Adopting  the  idea  of  Chevalier  Eamsey,  Dr.  Clarke 
recommends  to  his  brethren  a  new  and  easy  theory  of  fore- 
knowledge. According  to  his  view,  God  makes  a  distinction 
in  the  universe  of  hnowable  things,  between  those  which  he 
will  foreknow,  and  those  of  which  he  will  choose  to  remain 
ignorant.  Among  the  latter,  Dr.  Clarke  places  the  free  ac- 
tions of  intelligent  moral  agents.  God  resolves  not  to  fore- 
know these.  Thus  it  seems,  that  ignorance  is  a  high  perfec- 
tion of  an  infinite  Being,  without  which  it  is  impossible, 
according  to  the  Dr.  to  govern  the  moral  universe  !  Dr.  C. 
felt  that  the  commonly  received  views  of  foreknowledge  are 
inconsistent  with  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
and  that  most  of  the  objections  made  to  the  latter,  lie  with 
equal  weight  against  the  former.  Hence  the  necessity  of  de- 
vising some  mode  of  escaping  the  difficulties,  which  press 
upon  the  admission  of  foreknowledge  with  the  rejection  of, 
predestination. 

Mr.  Watson  and  his  brethren  had  too  much  shrewdness  to 
adopt  this  weak  expedient.  They  saw  at  once,  that  it  does 
not  meet  the  real  difficulty  of  the  case,  viz.  "  to  reconcile  the 
Divine  prescience  and  the  free  actions  of  men."  "  For," 
argues  Watson,  "  some  contingent  actions  for  which  men 
have  been  made  accountable,  we  are  sure  have  been  foretold 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  prophets;  and  if  the 
freedom  of  man  can  be  reconciled  with  the  prescience  of  God 
in  these  cases,  why  not  in  all  ?"     Most  forcibly  and  logically 


Let.  V.        FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  07 

said.  Even  if  we  were  to  conclude  with  Dr.  Clarke,  that  it 
is  consistent  with  the  perfections  of  God  to  shut  his  eyes  that 
he  may  not  see  the  free  actions  of  men,  and  thus  impose 
upon  himself  voluntary  ignorance,  this  strange  supposition 
would  bring  no  aid  to  Arminianism  in  the  midst  of  her  trials 
and  perplexities. 

A  simple  statement  of  undeniable  truth  will  place  this  sub- 
ject in  its  proper  light.  The  moral  actions  of  men  are  fore- 
known of  God  hundreds  of  years  before  they  take  place.  This 
no  one  can  doubt  who  believes  the  Scriptures.  The  conduct  of 
men,  whether  good  or  evil,  is  infallibly  foreknown  therefore, 
unless  the  knowledge  of  God  be  mere  conjecture.  It  is  just  as 
certain,  therefore,  that  it  will  agree  with  the  Divine  foreknow- 
ledge, and  be  precisely  what  it  is  known  to  be,  as  it  is  certain 
God  will  not  and  cannot  mistake.  Here  then  is  a  certainty* 
as  infallible  as  any  that  grows  out  of  predestination.  If  we 
reject  one  of  these,  on  this  account,  we  must,  to  be  consist- 
ent, reject  both.  But  to  deny  the  Divine  prescience  is  to 
deny  God.  Thus  does  Methodism,  in  her  rash  haste,  direct 
her  course  upon  the  very  brink  of  the  dark  abyss  of  atheism. 

*  "  If  it  be  alleged  that  the  purpose  influences  the  action,  and  therefore 
thero  is  a  wide  difference,  we  answer,  that  if  the  Divine  purpose  —  as  we 
maintain — has  no  other  influence  on  the  action  than  to  render  it  certain, 
there  is  no  difference  at  all,  in  this  respect,  botwoen  the  theories  of  fore- 
knowledge and  decree ;  for  on  some  account  and  for  some  reason,  the  thing 
t*  as  certain  as  it  can  be  on  tho  theory  of  mere  foreknowledge."  —  Biblical 
Repertory,  vol.  iii.  No.  2. 

9 


98  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI. 

LETTER   VI. 

FOREKNOWLEDGE— PREDESTINATION. 

Rev.  Sir — The  subject  of  the  second  chapter*  of  the 

"  Objections  to  Calvinism"  is  "  Eternal  Decrees."  It  would 
be  a  very  wrong  inference  from  this,  that  Arminians  reject 
the  doctrine  of  "eternal  decrees."  Even  Bishop  Simpson 
believes  that  God  will  judge  the  world,  and  say  to  the  right- 
eous on  his  right  hand:  "Come,  ye  blessed;"  and  to  the 
wicked  at  the  left,  "Depart,  ye  cursed."  If  so,  when  did  the 
omniscient  God  first  form  the  design  or  purpose  thus  to  judge 
the  world  ?  Was  it  in  time,  or  from  eternity  ?  Obviously 
the  latter,  as  even  the  Bishop  will  concede.  "  For,"  says 
Watson,  "what  the  creature  will  do  (in  order  to  judgment) 
is  known  beforehand  with  a  perfect  prescience ;  and  what 
God  has  determined  (or  decreed)  to  do  in  consequence,  is 
made  apparent  by  what  he  actually  does,  which  is  with  him 
no  new,  no  sudden  thought,  but  known  and  purposed  from 
eternity  in  view  of  the  actual  circumstances."  f  Then  here 
is  an  "  eternal  decree"  to  judge  the  world,  to  acquit  and  save 
one  part,  a  number  of  persons  infallibly  known  to  God,  and 
to  condemn  the  rest. 

But  what  is  still  more  surprising,  Arminians  also  teach 
"  eternal  decrees"  of  "  election  and  reprobation  !"  Here  is 
the  proof :  "  Obedient,  persevering  believers,"  says  Fletcher, 
"  are  God's  elect  in  the  particular  and  full  sense  of  the  word, 
being  elected  to  the  reward  of  eternal  life  in  glory."  But  may 
not  some  of  these  elect  ones  perish  ?  Fletcher  answers  : 
"We  grant  that  none  of  these  peculiar  elect  shall  ever  perish, 

*  On  the  title-page,  Mr.  Foster  says  his  book  is  "  a  series  of  Letters 
ro  Rev.  N.  L.  Rice,  D.  D."  Rut  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  letter  in  the 
volume.     There  are  eight  chapters  and  an  appendix,  but  no  "  letters." 

f  lust,  part  2,  chap.  28. 


Let.  VI.      FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  99 

though  they  would  have  perished,  if  they  had  not  been  faith- 
ful unto  death."  Very  well;  that  is  sound  Calvinism — the 
means  necessary  to  the  end.  But  is  the  number  of  these 
elect  so  certain  that  it  cannot  be  increased  or  diminished? 
"  We  allow,"  answers  Fletcher,  "  that  with  respect  to  God's 
foreknowledge  and  omniscience  their  number  is  certain."* 
But  if  "  their  number  is  certain  in  God's  foreknowledge  and 
omniscience,"  it  cannot  be  uncertain  in  the  eternal  decree 
to  judge  the  world,  which  the  Bishop,  following  Watson, 
must  hold  and  teach.  Hence  it  follows,  on  the  authority  of 
Watson,  Fletcher,  Bishop  Simpson  and  the  General  Confer- 
ence, that  "  the  number  of  the  elect  is  certain,"  and,  of  course, 
will  be  the  same  at  the  judgment  as  it  was  known  to  be  from 
eternity,  unless  God  may  be  mistaken  in  his  "foreknow- 
ledge !"  Fletcher  and  Watson  are  certainly  such  good 
authority  in  these  matters,  that  Bishop  Simpson  will  not  re- 
pudiate it. 

But  as  Mr.  Foster's  "  Objections"  are  confined  almost  ex- 
clusively to  "the  decree  of  reprobation,"  who  would  ever 
suspect  the  Bishop  and  his  Arminian  brethren  of  maintain- 
ing this  "  horrible  decree  ?"  Yet  such  is  the  simple  fact, 
which  we  prove  as  follows  :  We  turn  to  the  140th  page  of 
your  volume  of  "Doctrinal  Tracts,"  published  by  your  Gen- 
eral Conference.     Attend  to  the  following  quotations  : 

"  God  2^re^es^naies  or  fore-appoints  all  disobedient  unbe- 
lievers to  damnation,  not  without,  but  according  to  his  fore- 
knowledge of  all  their  works  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  "  God,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  foreknew 
all  men's  believing  or  not  believing.  And  according  to  this 
his  foreknowledge  (viz.  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  or 
from  eternity),  he  refused  or  reprobated  all  disobedient  unbe- 
lievers as  such,  to  damnation."     On  these  extracts,  I  observe, 

1.  It  is  asserted  that  some  men  will  live  and  die  "  disobe- 
dient unbelievers." 
*  See  Ms  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  399.    "  Preface  to  fictitious  and  genuine  Creed." 


100  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI. 

2.  God  had  a  perfect  "foreknowledge  of  all  their  works 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

3.  It  follows  that  he  perfectly  foreknew  their  character, 
names, and  number:  these  were  certainly  known,  *.  e.  immu- 
tably certain,  as  God  could  not  mistake  a  single  name,  or 
miscount  a  single  unit  of  the  precise  number  of  the  "disobe- 
dient unbelievers,"  who  are  "  fore-appointed  to  damnation  I" 

4.  These  "  disobedient  unbelievers,"  thus  infallibly  known 
by  works,  character,  names,  number,  God  has  "predestinated 
or  fore-appointed  to  damnation." 

5.  This  "  predestination  to  damnation"  of  the  precise 
f(  number  of  disobedient  unbelievers,"  was  from  eternity,  or 
"according  to  God's  foreknowledge  of  all  their  works  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world." 

6.  This  "fore-appointment  or  refusal  of  the  exact  number 
of  disobedient  unbelievers;"  this  decree  of  reprobation,  was 
passed  "before  they  were  born,"  and,  of  course,  "before  they 
had  done  either  good  or  evil."  Thus  "  some  men  are  born 
devoted  from  the  womb  to  eternal  death." 

7.  "  This  eternal  decree"  (of  reprobation)  we  are  told  in 
the  same  volume,  page  15,  "  God  will  not  change  and  man 
cannot  resist !"  So  that  the  Arminian  decree  of  Reprobation 
is  not  only  eternal,  but  irresistible  and  unchangeable  1 

8.  These  "  disobedient  unbelievers"  are  thus  particularly 
and  unchangeably  designed,  and  their  number  is  so  certain 
and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished, 
unless  God  may  be  mistaken.  Thus  it  is  plain,  that  notwith- 
standing all  their  outcry  against  Foreordination,  the  Bishop 
and  his  brethren  believe  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  "  eternal 
decrees" — even  the  eternal,  immutable,  irresistible  decrees  of 
election  and  reprobation ;  according  to  which  "  the  number 
of  the  elect  is  certain  as  the  foreknowledge  of  God ;"  and,  of 
course,  as  the  number  of  those  who  are  elect  (or  chosen  from 
mankind)  is  certain,  so  the  number  of  the  reprobate  (disobe- 
dient unbelievers)  must  necessarily  be  equally  certain.     The 


Let.  VI.       FOREKNOWLEDGE —  PREDESTINATION.  101 

one  set  cannot  be  more  certain  than  the  other.  If,  for  ex- 
ample, the  number  to  be  taken  from  ten  be  certainly  jive,  the 
number  left  will  be  equally  certain  to  be  five.  This  is  plain 
to  the  humblest  understanding. 

Now  here  the  question  arises  —  why  are  these  doctrines  of 
eternal,  absolute,  numerical  election  and  reprobation,  never 
heard  in  Methodist  pulpits  ?  It  is  not  for  us  to  answer  so 
difficult  a  question.  We  can  only  conjecture  that  they  are 
afraid  to  preach  thus,  lest  their  people  should  suspect  them 
of  going  over  to  Calvinism  —  which,  according  to  Messrs. 
Foster  and  Simpson,  represents  "  God  as  to  be  contemplated 
only  with  dread,  detestation  and  abhorrence  " — "  a  hideous 
compound  of  cruelty,  caprice,  duplicity  and  falsehood."  * 

What,  then,  is  Predestination  as  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, and  believed  by  the  Presbyterian  church  ?  It  is  the 
doctrine  of  a  plan  devised  and  executed  by  Him  who  is  the 
God  of  infinite  knowledge,  wisdom,  holiness,  justice,  goodness 
and  truth.  Every  rational  man,  when  he  designs  to  erect 
some  complicated  structure,  either  of  matter  or  mind,  pre- 
arranges carefully  the  whole  plan.  Just  so  with  the  Great 
Architect  of  the  material  and  moral  universe.  In  this  plan 
man  occupies  the  place  of  a  free  moral  agent,  to  whom  the 
Divine  decree  secures  freedom  of  action  in  its  highest  sense. 
God  has  ordained  that  he  shall  be  possessed  of  liberty,  and 
it  must  be  so.f     But  man,  created  free  either  to  stand  or  fall, 

*  Objections,  <tc.  pp.  54,  122,  <fec.  <tc.  Ac.  We  hope  to  bo  pardoned  for 
soiling  our  pages  with  these  and  similar  extracts.  Such  is  the  prevailing 
style  of  the  book,  and  if  wo  quote  at  all,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  such 
phraseology. 

f  "  Could  not  God  from  all  eternity  decroo  that  creatures  endued  with 
liberty  should  exist;  and  if  this  was  his  purpose,  will  not  the  event  answer 
to  it?  Human  liberty,  therefore,  instead  of  being  destroyed  by  tho  decree, 
is  established  upon  an  immutablo  basis.  It  would  bo  very  strange,  indeed, 
if  the  Almighty  could  not  effectually  will  tho  existenco  of  a  free,  voluntary 
act.  To  suppose  the  contrary,  would  be  to  deny  his  omnipotence.  To  say, 
then,  that  tho  decree  by  which  the  certainty  of  a  free  act  is  secured,  violates 
free  agency,  seems  very  much  like  a  contradiction."     Biblical  Repertory. 

9* 


102  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI. 

abused  his  liberty  by  rebelling  against  God,  and  lost  all  that 
renders  existence  valuable  —  his  moral  purity,  and  his  hope 
of  immortality.  To  rescue  him  from  this  condition  of  hope- 
less misery,  God  has  provided  a  Saviour,  who  is  the  "  author 
and  finisher  of  the  faith  "  that  saves  the  soul.  Every  thing 
that  a  merciful  God  performs  for  man's  redemption,  he  before 
determined  (or  decreed)  to  do.  He  becomes  the  "  author  and 
finisher  of  faith  "  and  salvation  to  those  who  are  delivered 
from  hell.  He  before  decreed  or  determined  to  become  the 
"  author  and  finisher  "  of  their  redemption.  This  is  the  doc- 
trine of  election  to  eternal  life.  But  when  did  God  first  in- 
tend to  perform  these  acts  of  mercy  for  fallen  men  ?  Was 
there  ever  a  period  when  He  did  not  intend  to  redeem  them  ? 
Manifestly  not.  This  eternal  design,  then,  or  intention,  to 
deliver  immortal  souls  from  death,  by  becoming  (through 
Christ)  the  "author  and  finisher  of  their  faith,"  holiness 
and  salvation,  is  the  eternal  decree  of  predestination  to  a  life 
of  endless  bliss. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  fallen  man  live  and  die  impenitent, 
he  fills  up  the  measure  of  his  iniquity,  and  in  the  strong  lan- 
guage of  our  Confession,  is  "  doomed  to  dishonor  and  wrath 
for  his  sin" — chap.  3.  sec.  7.  It  is  right  in  the  God  of 
justice  to  doom  him.  It  was  also  right  to  ordain  or  deter- 
mine to  doom  him  to  wrath  "for  his  sin."  It  cannot  be 
wrong  to  ordain  or  determine  to  do  a  right  thing.  Every 
thing  which  is  done  by  the  righteous  Rector  of  the  universe, 
He  before  determined  to  do.  He  actually  sentences  the  sin- 
ner to  suffer  for  his  sin.  He  before  decreed,  ordained,  or  de- 
termined to  do  so.  And  this  is  the  villified  and  misrepresented 
doctrine  of  reprobation  to  eternal  death. 

But  what  is  the  doctrine  of  Foreknowledge  upon  the  same 
subject  ?  God  creates  man,  and  places  him  in  a  state  where 
he  infallibly  foreknows  he  will  be  led  by  temptation  to  commit 
sin.  Under  these  circumstances,  man  will  sin  as  certainly  and 
undoubtedly  as  it  is  certain  the  all-knowing  God  cannot  mis- 


Let.  VI.       FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  103 

take.  Man  is  therefore  created  with  an  infallible  certainty 
of  sinning  against  God.  His  righteous  retribution  is  also 
infallibly  foreknown.  Man  will  infallibly  sin,  and  God  will 
infallibly  doom  him  to  wrath  for  his  sin.  All  this,  in  the 
case  of  every  finally  impenitent  sinner,  was  as  certainly  fore- 
known before  his  creation,  as  it  is  an  awful  fact  after  his  doom 
is  sealed,  or  as  it  will  be  known  at  the  final  consummation. 

The  sin  and  its  punishment  would  as  certainly  not  be  dif- 
ferent from  what  they  prove  to  be,  as  it  is  impossible  God 
should  become  an  erring,  deceived  being.  How,  then,  are 
the  difficulties  diminished  in  the  latter  statement  of  the  sub- 
ject ?  In  predestination,  the  existence  of  sin  is  permitted, 
as  the  abuse  of  man's  free  agency.  In  foreknowledge,  it  is 
foreseen,  and  not  prevented.  In  the  former,  it  has  a  place  in 
the  universe,  as  a  mysterious  evil,  out  of  which  God  will 
bring  ultimate  good.  In  the  latter,  it  is  distinctly  and  infal- 
libly foreknown,  and  will  hold  a  place  in  the  creation  as  cer- 
tainly as  God  is  unerring.  In  predestination,  God  decrees 
or  determines  to  permit  sin,  and  to  punish  the  wicked  for 
their  sin.  He  determines  to  do  the  very  thing  which  all  ac- 
knowledge it  is  right  he  should  do.  In  foreknowledge,  He 
foresees  infallibly  the  sin  of  the  creature,  and  also  his  own 
act  by  which  he  will  doom  him  to  everlasting  destruction ; 
and  yet,  with  this  infallible  certainty  of  man's  sin  and  per- 
dition, creates  him  with  precisely  those  faculties  and  propen- 
sities, and  places  him  in  that  state  and  under  those  circum- 
stances, in  connection  with  which  his  fall  and  ruin  will  as 
certainly  be  the  consequence  as  God  is  certainly  omniscient. 
We  submit  to  the  candid  judgment  of  every  reader,  whether 
those  who  reject  Predestination,  while  they  receive  the  doc- 
trine of  Foreknowledge,  do  not  "  strain  at  a  gnat,  and  swallow 
a  camel."  Nor  need  it  be  thought  strange  to  hear  even 
preachers  of  this  stamp  utter  sentiments  with  regard  to  the 
latter,  which  wound  the  feelings  and  even  chill  the  blood  of 
sober  Christians. 


104  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI 

The  doctrine  of  Predestination  as  thus  stated,  has  received 
the  cordial  approval  of  many  of  the  most  distinguished  theo- 
logians in  the  Presbyterian  church.  To  any  well  informed 
Calvinist,  the  foul  epithets  heaped  upon  our  system  by  Ar- 
minian  authors  and  preachers,  serve  only  to  excite  compassion 
for  their  rashness,  or  disgust  for  their  impiety.* 

But  still  it  may  be  inquired  whether  there  is  not  a  class  of 
Calvinists  whose  sentiments,  when  fairly  and  honestly  con- 
strued, assume  much  stronger  ground  than  the  foregoing ; 
and  perhaps  give  some  show  of  occasion  for  the  aspersions 
cast  upon  us  by  Arminians  ?  We  answer  —  we  know  of  no 
such  Calvinists  in  the  Presbyterian  church  j  and  if  there  be 
any  such  in  other  connections,  we  are  not  responsible  for  their 
errors.  We  have  admitted  that  the  distinction  of  Supralap- 
sarian  and  Sublapsarian  has  had  an  existence,  and  a  few 
eminent  men  seem  to  have  adopted  the  former  view.  This 
distinction  relates  to  the  order  of  the  Divine  decrees.  The 
Supralapsarian  goes  "above  the  fall" — for  so  the  term  sig- 
nifies. According  to  him,  "  God  had  but  the  one  great  end 
in  view  in  creation  —  the  manifestation  of  his  perfections; 
and  for  this  purpose,  says  an  eloquent  writer,  he  formed  men 
with  the  design  that  they  should  sin,  in  order  that  He  might 
appear  infinitely  good  in  pardoning  some,  and  just  in  con 
demning  others.  He  resolved  to  punish  such  and  such  persons, 
not  because  he  foresaw  they  would  sin,  and  in  view  of  their 
sin,  but  he  resolved  that  they  should  sin  that  he  might  damn 
them."  "j*     But  the  eloquent  Calvinist  who  draws  this  picture 

*  For  many  rare  specimens,  see  the  book  of  Foster  and  Simpson — "  Sa- 
tanic cruelty,"  "  malevolence,"  "  hypocrisy,"  "  God  a  Moloch,"  "  worse  than 
the  devil,"  &c.  &o.  We  would  not  quote  such  blasphemy,  were  it  not  that 
it  seems  necessary  in  order  to  show  the  spirit  in  which  Arminians  controvert 
■what  they  call  Calvinism. 

f  This  statement  is  from  Saurin,  vol.  ii.  Serm.  66.  A  much  milder  and 
probably  more  just  view  of  the  Supralapsarian  theory  is  given  by  Ridgely, 
vol.  i.  p.  445.  He  says  :  "  That  system  represents  reprobation  to  be,  not 
an  act  of  justice,  but  rather  of  sovereignty  " — and  that  "  it  has  given  rise  to 


LET.  VI.      FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  105 

of  the  Supralapsarian  scheme,  utterly  repudiates  it.  "  We 
easily  conceive,"  he  says,  "  that  it  is  for  the  glory  of  Divine 
justice  to  punish  guilty  men.  But  to  resolve  to  damn  them 
without  the  consideration  of  sin  —  to  create  them  that  they 
might  sin,  to  determine  that  they  should  sin  in  order  to  their 
destruction,  seems  to  us  to  tarnish  the  glory  of  God,  rather 
than  to  display  it."  "  In  the  general  scheme  of  our  church," 
he  adds,  "  God  only  permits  men  to  sin,  and  it  is  the  abuse 
of  liberty  that  plunges  man  into  misery."  "  We  believe  tbat 
God  from  a  principle  of  goodness  created  mankind  free, 
agreeably  to  his  infinite  wisdom,"  &c.  He  then  states  and 
approves  the  doctrine  of  the  Sublapsarian,  very  much  as  we 
have  given  it. 

In  earlier  periods,  we  admit  there  were  some  eminent  men, 
such  as  Twiss,  Witsius  and  others,  who  appear  to  have 
adopted  the  Supralapsarian  scheme ;  and  even  Calvin,  at 
times,  seems  to  lean  in  that  direction.  But,  so  far  as  known 
to  us,  the  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian  church  are  to  a  man, 
Sublapsarian.  In  their  scheme  the  purposes  or  decrees  con- 
template mankind  as  fallen  and  lost,  "by  nature  children  of 
wrath;"  and  that  from  this  mass  of  ruins,  God  determined 
to  save  all  who  will  be  saved,  and  to  punish  the  rest  "  for 
their  sin."  The  wonderful  provision  of  mercy  in  Jesus  Christ, 
by  which  he  saves  men,  never  was  made  for  fallen  angels. 
"  He  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels — but  was  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man." 

Thus,  then,  it  appears  that  some  of  the  same  objections 
urged  by  Arminians  against  the  system  of  Calvinism,  in 
general,  have  been  employed  by  the  Sublapsarian  Calvinist 
in  refuting  the  scheme  of  the  Supralapsarian.  But  as  all 
Presbyterian  authors,  whenever  they  speak  of  the  distinction, 
agree  in  disclaiming  the  Supralapsarian  theory  as  seeming 
to  "  make  God  the  author  of  sin,"  &c.  it  is  worse  than  fully 

prejudices  against  tbo  true  doctrine  of  Prcdostiuatiou,  as  though  it  involvod 
the  idea  that  God  mado  man  to  damn  him." 


106  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI. 

to  hold  the  Presbyterian  church  responsible  for  such  errors. 
How  gross  a  perversion  of  the  truth  do  we  find,  for  example, 
in  Dr.  Fisk's  "  Discourse  on  Predestination  and  Election  !" 
He  represents  the  Calvinistic  system  thus  :  "  That  the  char- 
acter and  acts  of  intelligent  beings,  so  far  as  their  moral 
accountability  is  concerned,  are  definitely  fixed  and  efficiently 
produced  by  the  unalterable  purpose  and  effectual  decree  of 
God."  "  Here,"  he  adds,  "  we  are  at  issue  with  Calvinists  I" 
Not  at  issue  with  any  shade  of  extreme  Calvinism ;  for  he 
says,  with  such  statements  "agree  all  the  Calvinistic 
Divines  in  Europe  and  America  !"  These  extraordinary 
statements  are  published  by  the  General  Conference,  in  No. 
131  of  their  series  of  Tracts !  These  are  not  the  blunders 
of  a  few  misinformed  zealots,  but  the  deliberate,  well- 
considered  statements  of  the  president  of  a  college,  and  others 
of  their  most  enlightened  men  !  And  even  Bishop  Simpson, 
in  his  "  Introduction,"  as  we  have  already  shown,  is  found 
in  the  same  discreditable  position. 

When,  therefore,  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson  object  to 
some  of  our  views,  "  that  they  render  the  conclusion  inevitable 
that  God  is  the  author — the  originator  or  cause  of  sin  "  * — 
we  meet  the  impious  charge  in  the  language  of  President 
Edwards — "If,  by  'the  author  of  sin,'  be  meant  the  agent 
or  actor  of  sin,  or  the  doer  of  a  wicked  thing,  *  *  *  I 
reject  such  an  imputation  on  the  Most  High  as  a  reproach 
and  blasphemy  infinitely  to  be  abhorred.  But  if,  by  'the  au- 
thor of  sin,'  be  meant  the  permitter,  or  not  a  hinderer  of  sin; 
and  at  the  same  time  a  disposer  of  the  state  of  events,  in  such 
a  manner,  for  wise  and  holy  and  most  excellent  ends  and  pur- 
poses, that  sin,  if  it  be  permitted  and  not  hindered,  will  most 
certainly  follow :  I  say,  if  this  be  all  that  is  meant,  I  do 
not  deny  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin  (though  I  dislike  and 
reject  the  phrase),  and  it  is  no  reproach  for  the  Most  High 
to  be  thus  the  author  of  sin.  *  *  *  And  I  assert  that 
*  Objections,  &c.  p.  30. 


Let.  VI.       FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  107 

it  equally  follows  from  the  doctrine  maintained  by  most  of 
the  Arminian  divines."  * 

On  the  subject  of  the  permission  of  sin,  the  author  of 
"  Objections,"  &c.  seems  even  more  in  the  dark  than  is  his 
wont.  Thus  he  tells  us,  "  The  doctrine  of  permission  is  an 
abandonment  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees  as  taught  by  the 
Presbyterian  church  —  that  it  is  Arminianism,  not  Calvin- 
ism ;  "  and  addressing  Dr.  Rice,  Mr.  Foster  says :  "  Do 
you  not  know  that  I  defend  the  doctrine  of  permission 
(of  sin)  against  yov,  who  deny  it?"  But  if  the  Bishop 
and  Mr.  F.  had  been  at  the  pains  to  look  into  almost  any  of 
our  standard  writers,  from  Turretine  down  to  the  present  day, 
they  would  have  discovered  this  distinction  fairly  and  fully 
stated  between  the  efficacious  and  permissive  decrees.  Thus, 
in  so  common  a  book  as  Dr.  Ashbel  Green's  "  Lectures  on  the 
Shorter  Catechism,"  we  read  as  follows  : 

"  There  is  a  difference  always  to  be  kept  up  between  what 
have  been  denominated  the  efficacious  decrees  and  the  per- 
missive decrees.  The  former  relate  to  whatever  is  morally 
good — his  permissive  decrees  to  whatever  is  morally  evil. 
Evil  he  permits  to  take  place  and  efficaciously  overrules  to 
his  own  glory."  So  also  Dr.  John  Owen,  of  the  days  of 
Cromwell :  "  The  decree  respects  the  creation  of  man,  and 
the  permission  of  his  fall."  f  It  would  be  a  serious  task  to 
quote  even  a  part  of  what  our  best  writers  have  penned  in 
defense  of  this  distinction.  The  language  of  our  Confession  of 
Faith  will  be  presented  as  we  proceed  in  the  discussion.  We 
will  thus  be  able  to  decide  whether  Calvinists  deny  what  they 
every  where  recognize  as  an  essential  feature  of  their  system  ! 

In  reply  to  the  usual  quotations  from  modern  Calvinists 
abundantly  asserting  the  distinction  between  efficacious  and 
permissive  decrees,  the  General  Conference,  in  Tract  131, 
employ  Dr.  Fisk  to  utter  the  following : 

*  On  the  Will,  part  4,  sec.  9. 

f  Exposition  of  Hebrews,  vol.  ii.  p.  35. 


108  DIFFICULTIES  OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI. 

"  Those  early  defenders  of  unconditional  election/'  remarks 
Dr.  F.  "  came  out  boldly  and  fearlessly  with  their  doctrine. 
If  modem  Calvinists  would  do  the  same,  we  should  need  no 
other  refutation  of  the  system."  "At  the  present  day,  nu- 
merous changes  of  a  more  popular  cast,  and  such  as  are  suited 
to  cover  up  the  offensive  features  of  the  system,  are  intro- 
duced." "  To  represent  the  thing  as  it  is,  seems  so  like  ac- 
cusing our  brethren  of  insincerity  and  duplicity,"  &c.  "And 
being  hard  pressed  by  their  antagonists,  they  have  thrown  up 
these  new  redoubts,  and  assumed  these  new  positions,  not  only 
to  conceal  their  doctrine,  but  if  possible  to  defend  it." 

It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark,  that  the  Papists,  Pelagians 
and  Socinians  of  Turretine's  day  employed  this  same  artifice. 
Thus  they  accused  the  orthodox — "  reipsa  sentire,  quod  verbo 
profiteri  non  audent  " — "with  holding  sentiments  they  did  not 
dare  openly  to  profess."  And  Turretine  tells  us,  to  such  men 
as  Zuingle,  Luther,  Calvin,  Beza,  and  others,  the  atrocious 
injury  was  done  (atrocem  fieri  injuriam). 

If,  therefore,  Dr.  Fisk  and  the  Conference  are  correct,  the 
doctrine  of  the  permission  of  sin  is  a  mere  subterfuge — a 
modern  Calvinistic  artifice,  adopted  in  order  to  conceal  our 
real  views  from  our  Arminian  antagonists,  by  whom  we  have 
been  "  hardly  pressed  "  in  the  argument ! 

But  in  this  thing  these  Arminian  authors  and  their  Con- 
ference betray  great  rashness,  as  well  as  commit  a  breach  of 
Christian  courtesy.  It  will  be  admitted,  we  suppose,  that 
Francis  Turretine  does  not  belong  to  the  "moderns."  He 
was  born  1623 — died  1687.  His  great  work,  the  Institutio 
Theologian,  was  published  at  G-eneva,  where  he  was  Professor 
of  Theology,  one  of  Calvin's  distinguished  successors.  Of 
course,  he  belongs  to  a  period  a  century  prior  to  the  advent 
of  Wesley,  a  hundred  years  before  Methodism  was  thought  of. 
He  was  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  that  celebrated 
school  of  the  prophets.  His  system  is  now  a  standard  work 
among  Calvinists,  is  used  at  Princeton,  N.  J.  as  a  text-book, 


Let.  VI.      FOREKNOWLEDGE  —  PREDESTINATION.  109 

and  is  every  where  recognized  as  a  reliable  exposition  of  Old 
School  Calvinism.  We  will  translate  a  few  passages  for  the 
benefit  of  our  assailants  : 

Decrees. — "  The  decree,  in  respect  of  its  objects,  often  in- 
cludes a  certain  condition,  but  is  nevertheless  in  its  own 
nature  absolute  ;  because  both  the  condition  and  conditional 
event  depend  immutably  upon  God,  either  in  respect  of  per- 
mission in  things  that  are  wicked,  or  of  efficiency  in  things 
that  are  good :  (vel  quoad  permissiouem  ut  in  malis,  vel 
quoad  effcetionem  in  bonis.)" 

Necessity. — Our  author  affirms  that  the  Divine  decree  im- 
plies the  necessity  of  future  events ;  but  he  expressly  dis- 
claims the  idea  of  an  absolute  or  physical  necessity,  as  also  the 
necessity  of  coercion  or  force  ;  and  teaches  a  necessity  which 
respects  only  the  certainty  of  the  future  existence  of  the  event, 
which  is  the  object  of  the  decree :  (respectu  certitudinis 
eventus  et  futuritionis  ex  decreto.)  And  in  reply  to  the  ob- 
jection that  this  doctrine  makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  he 
says  of  the  decree,  "  non  est  effectivum  mali,  sed  tantum  per- 
missivum  et  directivum" — "it  is  not  efficient  of  evil,  but  only 
permissive  and  directive  to  proper  ends." 

Election  he  defines,  "  the  counsel  of  God,  in  which  he  de- 
creed out  of  his  mere  grace  to  have  compassion  upon  certain 
persons,  and  being  delivered  from  their  sins  through  his  Son, 
to  bestow  upon  them  eternal  salvation."  "  The  decree  of 
eternal  life  and  eternal  death  has  respect  to  man  as  fallen 
(respicere  hominem  lapsum).  Otherwise  he  says,  we  repre- 
sent "  God  as  having  reprobated  man  before  by  sin  he  could 
be  the  proper  object  of  reprobation  ;  and  as  having  sentenced 
the  innocent  to  punishment,  before  any  fault  was  foreseen  in 
them."  "  By  the  decree  of  God,  the  salvation  of  the  elect  is 
established  and  certain,  but  by  the  decree  of  the  same  God 
only  in  the  way  of  faith  and  holiness." 

The  views  of  Turretine  on  the  subject  of  Reprobation,  will 
be  further  adduced  when  we  come  to  speak  more  directly  on 
10 


110  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI. 

that  topic.  We  will  next  look  at  the  sentiments  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  which  met  in  1643,  and  whom  even  Dr. 
Fisk  and  the  Conference  will  hardly  claim  to  be  "  mod- 
erns I"  In  order  to  convict  Presbyterians  of  the  monstrous 
impiety  which  represents  God  as  the  author  and  efficient  cause 
of  sin,  these  Arminians  quote  the  Assembly's  Confession,  chap. 
5,  sec.  4  : 

"The  almighty  power,  unsearchable  wisdom  and  infinite 
goodness  of  God,  do  so  far  manifest  themselves  in  his  providence, 
that  it  extendeth  itself  to  the  first  fall  and  all  other  sins  of  an- 
gels and  men,  and  that  not  by  a  bare  permission,  but  such  as 
hath  joined  with  it  a  most  wise  and  powerful  bounding,  and 
otherwise  ordering  and  governing  of  them  in  a  manifold  dis- 
pensation to  his  own  holy  ends."  This  passage  is  supposed  to 
assert  such  an  "  efficient  control"  over  all  the  actions  of  men 
and  angels,  as  to  represent  God  as  the  author  of  all  their 
sins.  Now  it  might  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  this  simply  to 
quote  the  remainder  of  the  section,  viz.  "  Yet  so  as  the  sinful- 
ness thereof  (of  wicked  actions)  proceedcth  only  from  the  crea- 
ture, not  from  God."  The  very  section,  adduced  in  proof 
that  Presbyterians  teach  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  utterly 
disclaims  such  a  sentiment.  Is  it  fair,  to  attempt  to  prove 
us  guilty  of  an  impious  dogma,  by  referring  to  an  article 
which  expressly  disclaims  it?  Further  :  Let  us  insert  in  the 
body  of  the  foregoing  article,  the  negative  which  denies  its 
truth,  and  how  will  it  read?  Thus:  "The  almighty  power, 
unsearchable  wisdom,  and  infinite  goodness  of  God,  do  not  so 
far  manifest  themselves  in  his  providence,  as  to  extend  either 
to  the  first  fall,  or  to  any  other  of  the  sins  of  angels  and  men, 
except  by  a  bare  permission,  which  has  not  joined  with  it  any 
wise  and  powerful  bounding  (i.  e.  limiting  or  restraining); 
nor  does  God  order  (or  overrule)  and  govern  them,  in  a  mani- 
fold dispensation,  to  any  holy  end."  In  the  act  of  sin,  there- 
fore, creatures  are  left  beyond  the  reach  of  Divine  providence ; 
they  are  without  any  overruling  power,  and  beyond  the  limit 


Let.  VI.      FOREKNOWLEDGE —  PREDESTINATION.  Ill 

of  any  wise  and  powerful  restraint,  for  holy  and  benevolent 
purposes !  Moreover,  where  there  is  no  government,  there  is 
no  law,  and  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression. 
Iu  the  act  of  sin,  therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  sin  ! !  In 
truth,  this  article  is  only  a  full  expression  of  the  sentiment 
of  the  Psalmist:  "The  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  thee,  and 
the  remainder  of  wrath  thou  wilt  restrain."  Do  Methodists 
deny  this? 

Once  more  our  Confession  is  brought  to  testify  against  us. 
Thus  chap.  3,  sec.  2  :  "Although  God  knows  whatsoever  may 
or  can  come  to  pass,  yet  has  he  not  decreed  any  thing  because 
he  foresaw  it  as  future,"  &c.  But  can  any  person  of  sense 
maintain  the  affirmative  of  this  article,  viz.  "  that  God  has 
decreed  many  things  because  he  foresaw  them  as  future  ?" 
How  will  it  work  with  his  positive  or  efficient  decrees — say 
to  make  or  judge  the  world  ?  Has  God  decreed  (or  deter- 
mined) to  do  either  of  these  great  acts,  because  he  foresaw  he 
would  perform  them  ?  The  question  answers  itself.  Let  us 
try  it  with  his  permissive  decrees.  Does  God  foresee  that  he 
will  permit  certain  conduct,  and  not  till  then,  decree  (or  de- 
termine) to  permit  it  ?  A  child  would  pronounce  it  non- 
sense to  talk  of  a  being  foreseeing  that  he  will  do  certain 
things,  and  then,  not  before,  determining  to  do  them. 

Again  it  is  objected  that  our  Confession  of  Faith  teaches 
that  the  angels  and  men  who  are  predestinated,  "  are  partic- 
ularly and  unchangeably  designed ;  and  their  number  is  so 
certain  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or 
diminished."  Conf.  chap.  3,  sec.  4.  But  what  is  the  lan- 
guage of  Methodism  in  her  standard  publications,  in  reference 
to  this  subject?  "I  believe  the  eternal  decree  concerning 
both  (election  and  reprobation)  is  expressed  in  these  words, 
1  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned.'  And  this  decree,  without  doubt,  God  will 
not  change,  and  man  cannot  resist."  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  15. 
Now  add  to  this  "  eternal,  unchangeable,  irresistible  decree" 


112  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VI. 

of  Methodism,  the  admitted  truth,  that  God  infallibly  for e- 
Jcnows,  individually,  personally,  by  name  and  by  number,  the 
identical  persons  to  whom  it  will  secure  salvation,  and  to 
whom  it  will  secure  perditiou — that  the  number  of  the  saved 
and  the  number  of  the  lost,  are  as  certainly  known  in  the 
Divine  prescience,  as  though  that  precise  number  of  persons 
had  already  been  admitted  to  heaven,  and  that  other  precise 
number  been  cast  down  to  hell.  Most  manifestly,  then,  "the 
number  of  the  predestinated  is  so  definite,  that  it  cannot  be 
either  increased  or  diminished,"  unless  the  Divine  fore- 
knowledge be  mere  conjecture,  and  he  who  knows  all  things 
have  made  a  mistake.  "  Whatever  God  foreknows,"  says  Dr. 
Fisk,  "  will  undoubtedly  (or  certainly)  come  to  pass."  He 
foreknows  the  exact  number  who  will  believe  and  be  saved 
— that  exact  number  will  undoubtedly  be  saved.  He  fore- 
knows the  exact  number  who  will  refuse  to  believe  and 
perish — that  exact  number  will  undoubtedly  (or  certainly) 
perish.  This  argument  might  be  extended  to  a  great  length, 
at  every  step  multiplying  the  embarrassments  of  our  oppo- 
nents. We  might  call  upon  them  to  explain  how  they  can 
sincerely  and  honestly  urge,  exhort,  entreat  sinners  to  flee  from 
the  wrath  to  come,  since,  on  their  own  principles,  "  the  num- 
ber of  the  elect  is  certain,"  as  Fletcher  affirms,  and,  of  course, 
the  number  of  the  reprobate  equally  certain.  Do  they  expect 
to  change  this  certainty,  t.  e.  to  falsify  infallible  foreknow- 
ledge ?  How  will  they,  on  these  principles,  evince  the  mercy 
of  God,  in  originally  creating  beings  who  were  infallibly  cer- 
tain to  be  miserable  for  ever ;  or  his  grace,  in  giving  his  well- 
beloved  Son  to  die,  to  make  an  atonement  and  purchase  a 
salvation,  by  shedding  his  blood  for  thousands,  for  whom 
these  blessings  were  infallibly  certain  to  result  only  in  the 
aggravation  of  their  unutterable  woe  ? 

Our  Arniinian  "antagonists,"  as  they  choose  to  call  them- 
selves, will  now  perceive  how  vulnerable  the  scheme  of  doc- 
trine they  have   adopted — how  easy  to   retort  upon  sucb 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPKOBATION.  113 

authors  as  Foster  and  Simpson,  the  shocking  blasphemies  they 
charge  upon  Calvinism ;  and  especially  how  foolish,  not  to 
say  wicked,  the  attempt  to  fix  upon  the  Presbyterian  minis- 
try the  foul  stain  of  deliberate  deception,  "  insincerity ," 
"  duplicity,"  "disingenuousness  and  cowardice,  in  smoothing 
over  and  covering  up,  &c."  *  It  is  obvious  that  these  foul 
aspersions  lie  with  far  greater  force  against  our  Arminian 
accusers ;  for  who  ever  heard  an  Arminian  preacher  state 
from  the  pulpit  these  difficulties  of  his  system  ?  Who  ever 
finds  them  even  hinted  at  in  such  works  as  Foster's  "  Objec- 
tions to  Calvinism  ?"  But  "to  their  own  Master  they  stand 
or  fall" — we  are  not  their  judges. 


LETTER    VII. 

PREDESTINATION— ELECTION— REPROBATION. 

Rev.  Sir — It  has  now  been  made  apparent,  if  I  mistake 
not,  that  the  attempts  of  Arminians  to  manufacture  a  creed 
for  the  Presbyterian  church,  is  a  total  failure ;  and  that  the 
impious  dogmas  which  you  say  we  "  must  believe,"  bear 
"  the  image  and  superscription"  of  the  great  lights  of  Armin- 
ianism  !  We  might  here  leave  the  subject  to  the  judgment 
of  all  unprejudiced  men.  But  although  it  is  not  our  object 
to  write  an  extended  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  Predestina- 
tion ;  yet,  as  this  feature  of  our  system  more  than  all  others, 
has  furnished  modern  Methodists  with  matter  of  abuse  and 
denunciation,  it  may  be  proper  to  dwell  briefly  on  its  logical 
bearings  upon  several  distinct  topics ;  in  doing  which  we  shall 
endeavor  at  the  same  time  to  exhibit  the  weakness  of  the 
Arminian  scheme. 

I.  The  inquiry,  Why  does  sin  exist  under  the  government 
of  a  most  wise,  holy  and  powerful  Ruler?  has  always  been 

*  Dr.  Fisk  on  Elec.  and  Predest  pp.  34,  35.     Methodist  Tract,  No.  131. 
10* 


114  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VII. 

viewed  as  attended  with  difficulty.  If  we  accept  the  state- 
ments of  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson,  the  Calvinistic  solution 
is  briefly  this  :  "  God  is  the  author,  originator  and  efficient 
cause  of  all  sin,"  and,  of  course,  of  the  first  sin.  "  Divine 
agency  is  as  much  concerned  in  bad  as  in  good  actions." 
"  When  man  chooses  sin,  he  wills  not  freely — hut  God  by 
invisible  power,  irresistibly  compels  him  to  will" — "  and  he  is 
no  more  free  in  his  choice  than  the  earth  in  its  revolutions." 
Of  course,  the  whole  matter  is  contained  in  a  nut-shell : 
Adam,  according  to  Calvinists,  sinned  because  he  could  not 
help  it — could  not  resist  the  Divine  impulse  to  do  wickedly  !  * 
But  if  these  our  "antagonists"  had  been  sincerely  desirous 
"to  show  what  Calvinists  themselves  teach  on  this  subject," 
they  would  have  pursued  a  very  different  course.  Instead  of 
gathering  scraps,  detached  paragraphs  penned  by  Chalmers, 
Dick,  Toplady,  Edwards  and  others,  often  when  writing  on 
other  topics,  they  would  have  copied  a  few  sentences  such  as 
the  following  from  Jonathan  Edwards,  when  expressly  speak- 
ing of  the  author  of  sin  :  "  There  is  a  vast  difference  between 
God  being  concerned  by  his  permission,  in  the  event  and  act 
of  sin,  *  *  *  and  his  producing  it  by  a  positive  agency 
or  efficiency.  As  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sun 
being  the  cause  of  the  light,  and  of  the  warmth  of  the  atmos- 
phere *  *  and  its  being  the  occasion  of  darkness  and 
frost  when  it  descends  below  the  horizon.  *  *  *  Sin  is 
not  the  fruit  of  any  positive  agency  or  influence  of  the  Most 

*  Objections,  &c.  pp.  45,  47.  In  proof  of  these  blasphemous  charges,  Mr. 
F.  quotes  Dr.  Emmons ;  but  he  forgets  to  add  that  he  was  not  a  Presbyterian 
but  a  Congregationalist  of  New  England  —  that  his  doctrinal  sentiments 
never  had  any  considerable  currency  even  among  his  own  brethren,  and 
never  found  a  solitary  advocate  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  Any  minis- 
ter of  our  body  who  should  avow  Emuionsism,  would  be  disciplined  for  dan- 
gerous error.  Mr.  Foster  might  as  well  have  cited  Priestley,  Belsham  or 
Ballou  against  Calvinism  as  Dr.  Emmons.  In  Ridgely's  Body  of  Divinity, 
vol.  i.  p.  424,  he  will  find  an  able  and  conclusive  refutation  of  Dr.  Emmons' 
views,  viz.  that  "  God  is  the  direct  author,  the  immediate  cause,  the  proper 
creator  of  all  moral  evil,  as  well  as  of  holinoss  in  heart  and  life." 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  115 

High,  but  arises  from  the  withholding  of  his  action  and 
energy,  kc;  there  is  a  great  difference  between  his  not  hin- 
d*  iin<j  it  and  his  being  the  proper  cause  of  sin,  &c.  If  men 
never  commit  sin,  except  when  God  leaves  them  to  them- 
selves, and  necessarily  (or  certainly)  sin  when  he  does  so,  it 
follows  that  their  sin  is  from  themselves,  not  from  God."  * 
Or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  our  Catechism  :  "Our  first  parents, 
being  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  fell  *  *  *  by 
sinning  against  God."f  Is  this  the  same  as  to  say  :  "man  is 
a  machine,  and  under  a  necessity  such  as  that  of  matter  to  obey 
gravitation  ?"  J 

In  reply,  therefore,  to  the  question,  Why  does  sin  exist 
under  the  government  of  a  most  wise,  holy,  benevolent  and 
powerful  Being  ?  Calvinists  from  the  days  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
and  Augustine  down  to  Luther,  Calvin  and  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  have  uniformly  answered,  "  Because  God  saw 
proper  to  permit  its  existence,  determining  so  to  overrule 
all  things  as  to  make  <  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him/  and 
from  infinite  evil  to  bring  infinite  good."  Thus  the  West- 
minster Confession  :  "  This  their  sin  (viz.  of  our  first  parents) 
God  was  pleased  according  to  his  wise  and  holy  counsel,  to 
permit,  having  purposed  to  order  it  to  his  own  glory."  chap. 
6,  sec.  1.  Again :  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  19  :  '*  God  by  his 
providence  permitted  some  of  the  angels  willfully  and  irre- 
coverably to  fall  into  sin  and  damnation,  limiting  and  order- 
ing that  and  all  their  sins  to  his  own  glory."  While,  there- 
fore, the  Westminster  Divines  maintain  that  "God  hath  fore- 
ordained whatsoever  comes  to  pass,"  they  also  admit  the 
important  distinction  between  the  efficient  and  the  permissive 
decrees,  so  that  "  all  things  fall  out  according  to  the  nature 
of  second  causes."  chap.  5,  sec.  2.  "  Neither  is  God  the 
author  of  sin ;  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  crea- 
tures; nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken 

»  On  the  Will,  pp.  250,  251,  abridged.  f  Que.-t.  13. 

%  Fostor's  Objections,  p.  4-1. 


116  DIFFICULTIES  OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VII. 

away,  but  rather  established."  chap.  3,  sec.  1.  This  power- 
ful, wise  and  good  providence,  it  is  further  said  (chap.  5,  sec. 
4),  "  extendeth  itself  even  to  the  first  fall  and  all  other  sins 
of  angels  and  men,  and  that  not  by  a  bare  permission,  but 
such  (permission)  as  hath  joined  with  it  a  most  wise  and 
powerful  bounding,  and  otherwise  ordering  and  governing 
them,  in  a  manifold  dispensation,  to  his  own  holy  ends ;  yet 
so  AS  the  sinfulness  thereof  proceedeth  only  from  the  crea- 
ture and  not  from  God,  who  being  most  holy  and  righteous, 
neither  is  nor  can  be  the  author  or  approver  of  sin."  "  Not 
by  a  bare  permission;"  "not,"  to  employ  the  illustration  of 
Calvin,  "  as  though  God  were  seated  in  a  watch-tower,  await- 
ing fortuitous  events."  The  views  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession are  in  part  well  expressed  by  Wesley  :  "  It  was  easy 
for  the  Almighty  to  have  prevented  sin."  "It  was  undoubt- 
edly in  his  power  to  prevent  it ;  for  he  hath  all  power  both 
in  heaven  and  in  earth.  But  it  was  known  to  him  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  was  best  on  the  whole  not  to  prevent  it." 
Serm.  vol.  ii.  p.  235.  That  sin,  therefore,  which  he  saw  "on 
the  ichole  .to  be  best,"  he  determined,  decreed,  or  foreordained 
— not  "  to  influence  men  to  commit^ — not  "  to  work  in  the 
hearts  of  the  wicked" — (as  we  are  slanderously  reported) — 
but  to  permit*  and  to  order  or  overrule  for  his  own  glory. 

The  Calvinistic  answer  to  the  inquiry,  Why  does  sin  exist  ? 
may  therefore  be  summed  up  as  follows  : 

1.  Sin  exists  by  the  permission  of  the  Almighty  Ruler. 

2.  It  exists  according  to  his  intention.  If  he  suffer  or 
permit  sin  to  exist,  he  doubtless  intended  to  do  so.  Other- 
wise, he  permitted  it  without  intention ;  that  is,  without  de- 
sign, plan  or  wisdom ;  or  contrary  to  his  intention.     In  other 

*  It  is  singular  that  a  Doctor  of  Divinity  should  so  far  misunderstand  the 
theological  meaning  of  this  term,  as  to  talk  as  follows  :  "  If  they  mean  by 
permission,  that  God  gave  a  personal  permit  to  Adam  and  Eye  to  commit 
sin,"  &c.  "  To  say  that  God  gave  a  permit  or  license  to  sin,  is  bold ;  but  to 
say  that  he  decreed  it,"  &o. — Dr.  Bangs'  Beply  to  Haskel,  p.  22. 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION — -REPROBATION.  117 

words,  contrary  to  what  is  holy,  wise  and  good,  as  all  his  de- 
signs must  be. 

3.  The  permitted  existence  of  sin,  as  a  part  of  the  Divine 
plan,  was  infallibly  certain  and  fixed  before  the  creation  of 
angels  or  men ;  or  in  other  words,  from  eternity.  For  if  it 
be  according  to  the  intention  of  the  Divine  Being  to  suffer 
the  existence  of  sin,  it  was  always  so,  unless  God  has 
changed.  Further :  God  from  all  eternity  foreknew  that  he 
would  suffer  sin  to  exist.  But  if  from  eternity  he  certainly 
knew  that  he  would  permit  sin,  he  must  have  certainly  deter- 
mined or  purposed  to  permit  it.  Otherwise  he  could  not  cer- 
tainly know  that  he  would  do  that  which  he  had  not  certainly 
determined  to  do.  Besides,  if  the  purpose  to  permit  sin 
be  not  from  eternity,  then  must  it  have  been  formed  at  some 
subsequent  period.  Then  there  must  have  been  some  reasons 
suggested  to  the  Divine  mind,  why  He  should  form  it  at  that 
time  and  not  before.  But  this  supposes  new  knowledge  to 
be  imparted  to  the  Deity,  which  is  absurd. 

4.  "Could  not  God  have  placed  at  the  head  of  the  human 
family,  on  whom  the  destiny  of  the  rest  should  depend,  one 
who  would  not  have  sinned  ?  If  he  could  not,  then  it  follows 
that  sin  could  not  be  avoided,  if  man  existed ;  and  the  deter- 
mination to  create  man,  involved  in  it  a  purpose  to  permit 
the  existence  of  sin.  But  if  it  be  said,  God  could  have  cre- 
ated in  the  place  of  Adam,  one  who  would  not  have  sinned, 
but  still  chose  to  create  one  whom  he  knew  would  sin,  it  is  as 
evident  as  anything  can  be,  that  by  this  selection  he  did  de- 
termine to  permit  sin."  *  So  that  whether  we  suppose  God 
could  or  could  not  have  created  as  the  federal  head  of  the 
race,  a  man  who  would  not  have  sinned,  we  are  landed  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  permission  of  sin;  much  more,  if  we 
admit  (which  is  the  common  Calvinistic  belief,)  that  the  same 
power  which  has  preserved  in  purity  and  fidelity  legions  of 
angels,  and  will  forever  preserve  "the  spirits  of  just  men 

*  For  this  extract,  see  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  iii,  p.  174. 


118  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VII. 

made  perfect,"  could  also  "  with  the  temptation,  have  made 
a  way  of  escape"  for  our  first  parents  ;  to  deny  which,  seems 
very  like  denying  both  the  power  and  the  truth  of  God. 

Very  different,  however,  is  the  answer  of  Arminians  to  the 
inquiry,  Why  does  sin  exist  ?  They  maintain,  that  on  the 
supposition  of  man's  free  agency,  the  Almighty  could  not 
prevent  his  fall;  and  that  after  doing  all  in  his  power  to 
"  secure  the  accomplishment  of  his  will,"  he  was  utterly  de- 
feated in  his  plan  !  "  We  never  doubted,"  says  Fletcher, 
"  his  ability  *  *  *  eternally  to  save  all  mankind,  if  he 
would  absolutely  do  it," — "  the  Almighty  can  overpower  all 
his  creatures,  if  he  should  be  bent  upon  it,  and  drive  them 
from  sin  to  necessitated  holiness,  far  more  easily  than  a  shep- 
herd can  drive  his  frighted  sheep  from  the  market,"  &c. 
This,  according  to  Arminians,  is  the  sort  and  degree  of  power 
God  possesses  to  prevent  si?i — viz.  by  "  destroying  the  free 
will  of  moral  agents."  Although,  therefore,  it  was  the  will 
of  God  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  sin  into  his  universe,  he 
had  no  method  or  power  to  prevent  man  from  sinning,  ex- 
cept in  "  opposition  to  his  own  wisdom,  justice,  holiness  and 
veracity."     Can  this  be  the  true  idea  of  God  ? 

In  the  same  strain  hear  Dr.  Bangs :  "  To  say  that  the  power 
of  God  was  adequate  to  have  prevented  man  as  a  free  agent, 
from  sinning,  is  a  contradiction."  (Rep.  to  Haskel,  p.  24.) 
And  Watson  :  "  We  may  confidently  say  that  He  willed  the 
contrary  of  Adam's  offense,  and  that  he  used  all  means  con- 
sistent with  his  determination  to  give  and  maintain  free 
agency  to  his  creatures,  to  secure  the  accomplishment  of  his 
will."  * 

Such  is  the  picture  of  the  Almighty  Sovereign  drawn  by 
Arminians,  and  of  the  government  whose  helm  he  holds  in 

*  And  yot  Watson  had  beforo  remarked  :  "  The  observations  of  Doddridge 
have  a  commendable  modesty,  viz.  '  It  will  be  demanded,  why  was  moral  evil 
permitted  ?  why  did  not  God  prevent  the  abuse  of  liberty  ? '  One  would  not 
willingly  say  that  he  was  not  able,  without  violating  the  nature  of  his 
creatures ;  nor  is  it  possible  to  prove  this."    Vol.  i.  p.  435. 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  119 

his  hand  !  u  My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my 
pleasure."  Isaiah  46 :  10.  "  Not  so,"  replies  the  Methodist ; 
"  God  often  fails  to  secure  the  accomplishment  of  his  will  and 
pleasure,  and  that  too  after  using  all  means  consistent  with 
the  nature  of  the  object  he  was  striving  to  secure  I  "  "  He 
doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven  and  among 
the  inhabitants  of  earth."  Dan.  4 :  35.  "However  it  may  be 
in  heaven  ! "  answers  Watson,  "  He  is  often  greatly  disap- 
pointed of  '  his  will '  among  the  '  inhabitants  of  the  earth  !'  " 
"We  have  obtained  an  inheritance,"  saith  the  Apostle,  "being 
predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of  Him,  who  worketh 
ALL  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will."  Eph.  1 :  11. 
"  To  that  statement,"  replies  the  Arminian,  "  I  have  several 
objections:  (1.)  i  Properly  speaking]  God  does  not  '  work 
all  things'  at  all.  I  would  almost  as  soon  believe  the  Presby- 
terian Confession  of  Faith,  as  to  believe  that.  (2.)  All  things 
are  not  '  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.'  For  we  may 
'  confidently  say,'  that  he  used  all  proper  means  to  secure  the 
accomplishment  of  his  will,  in  the  case  of  our  first  parents, 
and  most  signally  failed  !  (3.)  My  third  objection  is,  that 
if  we  have  no  better  foundation  for  our  hope  of  the  eternal 
1 inheritance]  than  'the  purpose  of  Him  who  worketh  all 
things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will/  why  we  may  as 
well  strike  our  colors,  and  turn  Calvinists  at  once ! " 
"Lord,"  says  the  Psalmist,  "incline  not  my  heart  to  any 
evil  thing,  to  practice  wicked  works."  Ps.  141  :  4.  "I  ob- 
ject utterly,"  says  the  Arminian,  "  to  any  such  absurd  Cal- 
vinistic  prayer  !  What !  a  Christian  pray  that  God  would 
not  incline  his  heart  to  evil,  nor  lead  him  into  temptation, 
when  it  is  as  plain  as  our  best  writers  can  make  it,  that  God 
could  not  incline  the  hearts  of  our  first  parents  even  to  good, 
without  destroying  their  free  agency  !  "  "  Incline  my  heart 
unto  thy  testimonies  and  not  to  covetousness,"  repeats  the 
Psalmist.  Ps.  119  :  36.  "  Shocking  !  "  exclaims  Wesley. 
"  Why  does  not  the  Bible  l  speak  more  properly  !  '  " 


120  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VII. 

"Will  they  deny/'  remarks  Edwards,  "that  an  omnipotent 
and  infinitely  wise  God  could  possibly  invent  and  set  before 
men  such  strong  motives  to  be  obedient,  and  have  kept  them 
before  them  in  such  a  manner  as  should  have  influenced  all 
mankind  to  continue  in  their  obedience,  as  the  'elect  angels' 
have  done,  without  destroying  their  liberty  ?  "  "  If  it  is 
not  in  the  power  of  God  to  keep  a  free  agent  from  sinning, 
with  what  propriety  can  he  be  directed  to  pray  for  restrain- 
ing grace,  or  that  he  may  be  kept  from  sin  ?  If  it  is  not  in 
the  power  of  God  to  control  the  hearts  of  free  agents,  and 
restrain  them  from  sin,  according  to  his  pleasure,  dreadful 
consequences  may  ensue.  They  might  in  every  respect  cross 
the  will  of  God,  and  defeat  every  valuable  end  the  Divine 
Being  proposed  in  their  formation.  The  good  he  aimed  at  in 
creation  may  be  prevented,  irreparable  disorders  be  intro- 
duced. The  friends  of  virtue  would  be  filled  with  lamenta- 
tion, and  the  enemies  of  God  and  of  all  good,  would  triumph 
and  exult.  We  infer  that  as  God  is  able  to  restrain  sin 
among  the  apostate  children  of  men,  who  are  under  the 
dominion  of  powerful  vicious  habits,  so  we  can  much  more 
easily  conceive  that  he  was  able  to  have  prevented  sin  in 
beings  made  originally  holy."  From  all  which  it  is  plain, 
that  the  problem  of  the  existence  of  sin  in  the  world,  must 
be  solved  by  saying  with  Wesley,  that  while  "  it  was  easy  for 
the  Almighty  to  have  prevented  sin,  he  saw  that  it  was  best 
on  the  whole  not  to  prevent  it."  In  other  words,  to  permit 
its  entrance  and  overrule  it  to  his  own  glory.* 

*  To  talk  of  the  Divine  Being  permitting  an  event  to  take  place,  which 
ho  is  not  able  to  prevent,  is  about  as  wise  as  to  talk  of  a  man  permitting  the 
sun  to  rise,  or  the  wind  to  blow  where  it  listoth.  And  yet  it  is  remarkable 
that  Watson  seems  to  adopt  this  sentiment.  "  It  is  obvious,"  he  says,  "  that 
by  nothing  can  we  fairly  avoid  this  consequence  (of  making  God  the  author 
of  sin),  but  by  allowing  the  distinction  between  determinations  to  no  on  the 
part  of  God,  and  determinations  to  permit  certain  things  to  be  done  by 
others."  Vol.  ii.  p.  424.  Again :  "  A  decree  to  permit,  involves  no  such 
coaeequencos."   Yet  he  holds  that  God  could  not  prevent  sin  in  free  agents ! 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  121 

But  while  it  would  be  impious  to  allege  that  the  most 
Holy  God  wills  sin  as  siu,  chooses  it  as  good,  the  source  of 
enjoyment,  the  fountain  of  happiness,  as  men  do — it  may 
still  be  his  pleasure  so  to  direct  and  overrule  events  in  his 
providence,  that  when  he  permits,  sin  will  come  to  pass ;  and 
this  he  may  do  most  wisely  and  holily — yea,  though  he  hate 
moral  evil  with  infinite  hatred.  This  is  justified  by  every 
enlightened  conscience,  however  certainly  it  is  foreknown  that 
the  creature  will  be  guilty  of  the  crime.  It  is  in  some  such 
sense  as  this  that  Calvinists  teach  the  Divine  permission  of 
sin,  viz.  not  that  God  approves  of  sin,  but  suffers  it  to  exist, 
and  brings  light  out  of  darkness,  good  out  of  evil. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  decide  what  Mr.  Foster  means  by 
saying  to  Dr.  Rice  :  "  the  doctrine  of  permission  is  Arminian- 
ism,  not  Calvinism."  He  means  that  God  permitted  sin  in 
free  agents,  because  he  could  not  help  it — very  much  as  a 
child  permits  the  tempest  to  roar  and  the  lightning  to  flash 
and  destroy  !  God  might  indeed  have  prevented  moral  evil 
by  abstaining  from  the  creation  of  moral  agents,  or  after  crea- 
tion, destroying  their  freedom — but  except  on  these  supposi- 
tions, sin  had  the  mastery — the  Divine  will  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  term,  was  thwarted  and  defeated. 

Now,  can  this  be  true  ?  Is  not  God  a  most  perfectly  happy 
being,  free  from  every  such  thing  as  pain,  grief  or  trouble? 
But  if  any  intelligent  being  is  crossed  and  disappointed,  and 
things  turn  out  contrary  to  his  favorite  purposes  and  desires, 
he  suffers  that  which  is  contrary  to  joy  and  happiness.  And 
if  every  act  of  sin  is  truly,  all  things  considered,  contrary  to 
the  Divine  will,  and  God's  hatred  of  sin  is  infinite,  because  of 
the  infinite  contrariety  of  his  holy  nature  to  it,  then  it  follows 
that  the  Divine  will  is  infinitely  crossed  in  every  act  of  sin. 
In  other  words,  God  endures  that  which  is  infinitely  disagree- 
able to  him  in  every  sin  committed.  Hence  he  must  be 
infinitely  crossed,  and  suffer  infinite  pain  every  day  in  mil- 
lions of  instances — he  must  be  the  subject  of  an  immense 
11 


122  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  VII. 

number  of  real  and  truly  infinitely  great  crosses  and  vexations. 
And  what  is  this  but  to  make  him  infinitely  the  most  miser- 
able of  all  beings.  *  In  any  such  sense  as  this,  Mr.  Foster 
might  truly  say  to  Dr.  Rice,  or  any  other  Calvinist :  "  I 
defend  the  doctrine  of  permission  against  you  who  deny  it."  ~\ 

If  the  proof  already  adduced  be  not  sufficient  to  establish 
the  fact  that  the  Presbyterian  church  do  hold  and  teach  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  permission  of  sin  (not  its  efficient  cau- 
sation*), we  add  the  following  from  that  very  common  work, 
"  Fisher's  Catechism,"  which  was  composed  by  the  Erskines 
and  James  Fisher,  of  Scotland,  A.  D.  1753-'65,  and  can 
scarcely  be  called  a  modern  production :  Q.  "  How  does  the 
decree  of  God  extend  to  things  naturally  and  morally  good  V* 
Ans.  "  Effectively ;  because  God  is  the  author  and  efficient 
cause  of  all  good."  Q.  "  How  does  it  extend  to  things  mor- 
ally evil  ?"  Ans.  Permissively  and  directively  only."  Q. 
"  Is  the  permissive  decree  a  bare  inactive  permitting  of  evil  V* 
Ans.  "  No ;  it  determines  the  event  of  the  evil  and  overrules 
it  to  a  good  end."     The  book  is  a  standard  among  Calvinists. 

Dr.  Dick,  also,  one  of  Mr.  Foster's  chief  authorities,  and  a 
high  Calvinist,  says  :  "  Our  scheme  presupposes  sin  as  the 
ground-work  of  Predestination,  and  makes  the  act  of  God 
toward  the  reprobate  to  be  nothing  more  than  his  purpose  to 
leave  them  in  their  sin,  and  to  withhold  his  grace,  which 
he  was  under  no  obligation  to  communicate.  God  does  not 
will  the  sins  of  man  or  effect  them  by  any  operation  of  his 
power."  Again  :  "  The  permission  of  moral  evil  does  not 
imply  an  approbation  of  it."  Again  :  "  God  permits  sinful 
actions."  In  proof  he  quotes  Psalm  81  :  "I  gave  them  up 
to  their  own  hearts'  lusts."  "  The  action  is  from  God ;  its 
quality,  if  it  be  evil,  is  from  man ;"  and  speaking  of  Pha- 
raoh :  "  God  did  not  exert  any  direct  and  immediate  influence 
upon  his  mind,  either  to  infuse  wickedness  into  it,  or  to  con- 

*  See  this  argument  at  length  in  Edwards  on  the  Will,  part  4,  sec.  9. 
t  Objections,  Ac.  p.  277. 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  123 

firm  his  proud  and  rebellious  disposition" — "  the  hardening 
of  their  hearts,  (viz.  of  wicked  men,)  is  their  own  work,  and 
is  ascribed  to  God  onlj  indirectly."  *  Ridgely,  another  of  Mr. 
Foster's  authorities,  says  :  "  Nothing  more  need  be  supposed 
on  God's  part,  in  order  to  the  holiest  creatures  losing  their 
virtue,  than  only  his  leaving  them  to  themselves."  Is  this 
the  same  as  saying  :  "  God  is  the  cause  of  all  sin" — "  works 
wickedness  in  the  wicked  ?" 

II.  From  the  discussion  of  the  eu trance  of  sin  and  its  per- 
mission, we  proceed  to  a  more  close  examination  of  its  bane- 
ful influence  upon  all  classes  of  the  human  family.  "  All," 
say  the  Scriptures,  "  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory 
of  God" — "Death  has  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned" — "God  hath  concluded  all  under  sin" — "In  Adam 
all  die."  The  curse  due  to  iniquity  hath  fallen  upon  the 
race.  "  Children  themselves,"  says  Wesley,  "suffer;  there- 
fore they  deserve  to  suffer. "f.  "Their  sufferings,  en- 
tailed upon  them  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  *  *  *  are  the 
result  of  justice."  "  The  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  infants, 
who  suffer  death  through  him. "J  "They  die;  therefore 
they  have  sinned,  but  not  by  actual  sin ;  therefore  by  original 
sin."  "  It  has  been  proved  that  *  *  *  hereby  they 
are  children  of  wrath  and  liable  to  eternal  damnation."^ 
These  strong  statements  of  the  just  exposure  of  even  infants 
to  suffering  and  death  by  "  the  sin  of  Adam,"  are  fully  con- 
firmed, as  has  been  shown,  by  Watson,  the  greatest  of  Armin- 
ian  theologians,  thus  :  "  The  fact  of  their  being  born  liable 
to  (bodily)  death,  a  part  of  the  penalty,  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  they  were  bom  under  the  whole  malediction."  ^[ 

These  and  many  similar  statements  from  leading  Arminian 
authors,  obviously  teach  the  following  doctrine,  viz.  In  v;- ■+ ' 

*  Theology,  Lecture  36,  24,  41,  43. 

f  Original  Sin,  part  3,  sec.  2,  3. 

J  Original  Sin. 

g  Treatise  on  Baptism.     Doct.  Tracts,  pp.  246,  251 

<fl  Vol.  ii.  pp.  58,  55. 


124  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNIANISM.  Let.  VII. 

of  the  representative  character  of  Adam  and  our  covenant 
relation  to  him,  all  mankind,  including  infants,  have  "become 
polluted  with  sin,"  are  "  subject  to  spiritual  death,"  or 
"  the  withdrawment  of  the  intercourse  of  God  with  the 
human  soul"  —  "die  temporally,  because  they  deserve  to 
suffer  and  die" — "  are  born  under  the  whole  malediction," 
and  are  "justly  liable  to  eternal  damnation,"  as  really  as 
infants  are  justly  exposed  to  temporal  death. 

Such  being  the  deplorable  state  of  sin  and  misery  into 
which  the  fall  had  brought  all  mankind,  suppose  that  it  had 
been  the  "  good  pleasure"  of  God  to  leave  them  all  to  the 
just  reward  or  "  wages"  of  their  sin  :  if,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
angels  that  kept  not  their  first  estate,  he  had  entertained 
thoughts  of  mercy  toward  none  of  them ;  would  it  have  been 
right  or  wrong,  just  or  unjust  ?  Calvinists  believing  the 
foregoing  Arminian  statements  to  be  scriptural  and  true,  an- 
swer, it  would  undoubtedly  be  right  and  just.  But  here  our 
Arminian  neighbors  part  company  with  us ;  they  allege  that 
the  terms  of  the  original  covenant,  which  was  "  very  good," 
as  all  God's  works  were,  could  not  be  executed  without  great 
injustice  and  extreme  cruelty  !  And  they  begin  to  mutter  : 
"  they  were  born  corrupt,  and  so  cannot  be  guilty  for  this" — 
tl  as  to  their  being  unregenerate,  neither  are  they  to  blame 
for  this,  because  it  was  entirely  without  their  consent."  * 
And  Wesley,  Clarke  and  the  Arminians  of  the  Conference 
generally  agree,  "  that  they  cannot  find  it  in  the  word  of 
God,  that  he  might  justly  have  passed  by  all  men" — "and 
they  reject  it  as  a  bold  precarious  assertion."  -j* 

But  not  only  do  they  thus  flatly  contradict  their  own  state- 
ments of  doctrine,  but  they  avoid  one  difficulty  by  leaping  into 
another.  For  if  you  say  it  would  have  been  wrong,  unjust  in 
God  to  execute  the  penalty  of  the  violated  law  upon  the  whole 
family  of  man,  then  it  follows  that  in  respect  to  that  part  of 

*  Objections  to  Calvinism,  p.  166,  and  in  other  places. 
f  Doctrinal  Tracts,  p.  25. 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPKODATION.  125 

mankind  toward  whom  the  punishment  would  have  heen  un- 
just, "  Christ  has  died  in  vain,"  grace  has  no  meaning  nor 
application,  unless  it  be  grace  to  save  those  whom  it  would 
■  have  been  unjust  to  punish,  and  who  therefore  stood  in  need 
of  no  salvation.  If,  therefore,  as  the  Arminian  vehemently 
argues,  Christ  has  died  for  all,  and  his  atonement  is  a  "  free 
gift" — grace  in  its  highest  sense — then  it  inevitably  follows 
that  all  might  justly  have  been  left  to  perish  for  their  sin,  if 
such  had  been  the  good  pleasure  of  God. 

Now  let  us  vary  the  case  a  little.  Instead  of  supposing  all 
to  receive  just  punishment  for  their  sin — instead  of  the  Divine 
Being  determining  that  all  should  receive  their  just  deserts — 
he  resolves,  in  a  most  wise  and  wonderful  manner,  to  rescue 
from  the  jaws  of  death  a  very  large  number  of  these  right- 
eously condemned  rebels,  to  stand  as  everlasting  monuments 
of  his  condescending  love  and  mercy ;  while,  to  illustrate  for 
ever  his  hatred  of  sin,  he  permits  the  law  to  take  its  course, 
and  executes  its  sentence  upon  the  rest — would  it  ever  enter 
the  mind  of  any  intelligent  person,  to  complain  that  God  was 
"partial,"  because  when  they  were  all  deserving  only  of  his 
wrath,  and  undeserving  of  his  mercy,  he  executed  his  wrath 
upon  only  a  part,  and  most  graciously  pardons  and  admits  to 
his  favor,  the  rest  of  the  guilty  rebels  ?  Had  he  punished 
the  whole,  all  ground  of  complaint  would  have  been  removed; 
for  Wesley  admits  that  even  infants  suffer  and  die,  because 
they  deserve  to  suffer  and  die,  and  "  that  their  sufferings  en- 
tailed by  Adam's  sin  are  the  result  of  justice;"  and  Watson 
adds,  that  if  they  justly  die  temporally,  they  may  justly  die 
eternally.  Of  course,  there  could  be  no  injustice  or  caprice  :  but 
since  he  has  seen  proper  to  punish  only  a  part,  he  is  charged 
with  partiality  !  "  In  matters  of  grace,"  says  Watson,  "  no 
axiom  can  be  more  clear,  than  that  he  who  gratuitously  be- 
stows has  the  right  to  do  what  he  will  with  his  own."  Vol.  ii. 
p.  413.  "  Friend,  I  do  thee  no  wrong.  Is  thine  eye  evil, 
because  I  am  good  ?"  Matt.  20  :  15.  These  plain  principles 
11* 


126  DIFFICULTIES  OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  VII. 

of  common  sense  are  so  universally  admitted,  as  to  have 
been  recognized  in  the  practical  administration  of  all  good 
governments ;  and,  indeed,  are  universally  acknowledged  in 
all  the  ordinary  walks  of  life. 

Who  then  maketh  the  Christian  to  differ  from  his  former 
self,  and  from  his  impenitent  neighbors  ?  And  what  has  he 
that  he  did  not  receive  ?  The  answer  is,  "  We  are  his  work- 
manship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works."  "  You 
hath  he  quickened  (or  made  spiritually  alive),  who  were 
DEAD  in  trespasses  and  sins."  "  It  is  God  that  worketh  in 
you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  "Thy 
people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power." 

But  was  there  not  something  good  found  in  the  creature, 
something  of  the  nature  of  holiness,  or  moral  excellence,  to 
move  or  induce  God  to  perform  the  work  of  spiritual  quick- 
ening, or  restoration  to  spiritual  life  ?  The  answer  is,  "  He 
hath  chosen  (or  elected)  us  in  him  (Christ)  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  (not  because  he  foresaw  any  thing  good  or 
holy  in  us,  but)  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame 
before  him  in  love."  "  In  whom  also  we  have  obtained  an 
inheritance,  being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose 
of  him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own 
will."  "  Who  hath  saved  and  called  us  with  an  holy  calling, 
not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose 
and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began."  To  these  very  individuals  did  the  blessed 
Saviour  refer  when  he  said,  "  All  that  the  Father  giveth 
me  shall  come  unto  me."  "  Thou  hast  given  him  power  over 
all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou 
hast  given  him."  Again  :  "  I  pray  for  them ;  I  pray  not 
for  the  world,  but  for  them  whom  thou  hast  given  me." 
"  No  man  can  come  unto  me  except  it  were  given  unto  him 
of  my  Father."  "  My  sheep  hear  my  voice  :  they  shall  never 
perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hands.  My 
Father  which  gave  them  me  is  greater  than  all,  and  none 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  127 

can  pluck  them  out  of  niy  Father's  hand."  And  to  the  same 
covenant  transaction  does  the  Apostle  allude,  when  he  speaks 
of  "eternal  life  promised  before  the  world  began"  Tit.  1  :  2 
— promised  not  to  men  but  to  Christ,  for  as  many  as  the 
Father  "  had  given  him." 

"  Election  of  God,"  as  Paul  expresses  it  (1  Thess.  1 : 4) 
instead  of  being  that  horrible  doctrine,  which  it  is  affirmed 
to  be  by  Arminians,  is  the  only  ground  of  a  Christian's  hope 
— the  last  refuge  of  the  despairing  sinner,  when  the  dark 
billows  overflow  his  soul.  "  Election  of  God"  is  only  another 
phrase  for  "  salvation  by  grace" — grace  begun,  continued  and 
finished  in  the  soul  by  him  who  is  the  "  author  and  finisher 
of  faith" — grace,  the  essential  nature  of  which  for  ever  ex- 
cludes all  merit  from  the  creature,  and  casts  him  in  utter, 
helpless,  hopeless  misery  upon  the  free  unmerited  compassion 
of  God — grace  originating  in  the  boundless  infinitude  of  the 
Divine  mercy,  and  illustrated  in  the  incomprehensible  myste- 
ries of  God  incarnate,  as  revealed  in  the  glorious  gospel. 

But  in  the  arrangements  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  were 
not  faith,  repentance  and  good  works  foreseen,  as  the  (/rounds 
or  reasons  why  his  sheep  were  given  to  the  Saviour  ?  The 
answer  is  :  "By  grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith,  and  that 
not  of  yourselves ;  it  is  the  gift  of  GOD."  *     Christ  is  "ex- 

*  Mr.  Wesley's  understanding  of  the  manner  in  which  faith  is  the  gift  of 
God,  is  singular  enough.  lie  says :  "  Believing  is  the  gift  of  the  God  of 
grace,  as  breathing,  moving  and  eating,  are  the  gifts  of  the  God  of  nature. 
He  gives  me  lungs  and  air,  that  I  may  breathe,"  <fcc.  Again :  "  Faith  is  the 
gift  of  God  to  believers,  as  sight  is  to  you.  The  Parent  of  good  freely  gives 
you  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  organs  proper  to  receive  it,"  Ac.  But  if  this 
be  a  correct  account  of  the  matter,  unbelief  is  as  much  the  gift  of  God  as 
faith,  since  the  powers  and  faculties  by  which  a  man  discredits  Divine  truth, 
are  the  gift  of  God,  as  much  as  those  by  which  he  believes.  If,  however, 
Mr.  Wesley  dosigned  to  teach,  that  besides  the  faculties  of  mind,  Divine  power 
and  grace  impart  also  the  dispositions  of  heart  by  which  a  man  welcomes  and 
receives  gladly  the  knowledge  of  tho  truth,  in  the  love  of  it,  this  is  the  high 
Calvinism  of  Paul.  "It  is  God  that  workcth  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure."    Philip.  2  :  13. 


128  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNIANISM.         Let.  VII. 

alted  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  TO  GIVE  repentance  to 
Israel  and  remission  of  sins."  These,  therefore,  which  are 
the  fruits  of  his  Spirit,  and  of  his  covenant  love  and  mercy, 
cannot  be  supposed  to  be  the  grounds  or  reasons  of  that  of 
which  they  are  the  fruits  or  results.  Christ  himself  is  "the 
author  and  finisher  of  faith."  Heb.  12  :  2.  And  the  very 
question  to  be  settled  is :  What  are  the  grounds  or  reasons 
why  these  and  other  gifts  are  bestowed  upon  Christ's  sheep, 
and  not  upon  others  ?  To  say  with  the  Arminian  that  it  is 
because  of  foreseen  faith,  is  to  make  faith  the  cause  of  itself, 
is  to  say  that  Christ  gives  faith  and  repentance  to  certain 
persons,  because  he  finds  them  already  possessing  faith  and 
repentance !  Besides,  "  Grod  hath  from  the  beginning  cho- 
sen them  unto  salvation,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth  •"  where  faith  and  holiness  are  de- 
clared to  be  the  means,  not  the  moving  causes,  of  their  elec- 
tion. Will  it  be  said  that  sufficient  grace  is  common  to  all, 
and  that  the  reason  why  any  one  believes  and  is  saved  is  be- 
cause he  makes  a  good  improvement  of  the  grace  given  him  ? 
We  inquire,  Is  this  "  improvement"  a  work  of  righteousness  ? 
If  so,  the  Apostle  declares  repeatedly,  "Not  by  tcorks  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us;"  where  he  places  in  strong  contrast  the  two 
schemes  of  salvation  by  works  and  salvation,  by  mercy  or 
grace.  "  Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast."  "To 
him  that  worketh,  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but 
of  debt."  "  But  if  it  be  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace  ; 
otherwise  work  is  no  more  work."  Rom.  11  :  6.  In  such 
emphatic  terms  does  he  teach  the  impossibility  of  mingling 
with  salvation  by  grace,  the  miserable  efforts  of  man.  But 
if  election  be  founded  on  man's  improvement,  then,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  man  makes  himself  to  "  differ,"  or  elects 
himself ;  so  that  when  the  Apostle  gave  thanks  to  God  for  his 
brethren  and  for  himself,  because  "  God  had  from  the  begin- 
ning chosen  them  unto  salvation,"  supposing  him  to  have 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  129 

been  a  sound  Methodist,  we  must  understand  him  as  follows  : 
"  God,  I  thank  thee,  that  from  eternity  thou  didst  foresee 
that  I  aud  my  brethren  would  make  a  much  better  improve- 
ment of  thy  grace  than  many  of  our  neighbors,  and  that  we 
would  choose  thee,  and  therefore  thou  hast  chosen  us  unto 
salvation;  so  that  with  our  ' good  leave,7  our  consent  to  do 
our  part  of  the  work,  and  to  make  choice  of  thee  in  preference 
to  the  world,  thou  hast  chosen  us ;  in  view  of  which  great 
mercies,  we  render  thanks  to  ourselves  in  the  first  place,  for 
our  faithfulness,  and  the  great  improvement  we  have  made, 
by  which  we  have  furnished  a  reason  or  ground  upon  which 
God  hath  chosen  us  unto  salvation  ! " 

We  freely  admit  that  no  pious  person,  however  Arminian 
his  creed,  will  ever  be  found  bold  enough  to  utter  such  senti- 
ments upon  his  knees,  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God.  It 
is  a  remark  no  more  trite  than  true,  that  all  good  men  are 
Calvinists  in  their  addresses  to  the  throne  of  grace.  But  it 
is  demonstrably  the  fact,  that  notwithstanding  all  that  is 
said  against  Predestination,  as  destroying  the  necessity  and 
use  of  prayer  and  the  other  means  of  grace,  the  objection  lies 
with  ten-fold  force  against  Arminianism.  The  Calvinist  be- 
lieves, that  though  the  means  of  grace,  including  prayer,  are 
of  themselves  entirely  inefficacious  in  producing  any  good  re- 
sult ;  yet  that  God  has  ordained  a  connection  between  means 
and  ends,  by  which,  through  his  power  and  Spirit,  whenever 
properly  employed,  his  own  institutions  become  efficient  to 
accomplish  that  to  which  they  are  sent.  But  when  the  Ar- 
minian attempts  to  pray,  what  can  he,  consistently  with  his 
principles,  "inquire  for?"  He  cannot  ask  God  to  convert 
sinners ;  for,  as  we  have  already  seen,  he  could  only  mean, 
that  God  would  "  note"  their  faithfulness,  the  improvement 
which  they  have  made,  and  according  to  this  knowledge,  deal 
with  them  righteously;  a  course  which  the  Most  Eoly  will 
certainly  pursue,  whether  he  prays  for  it  or  not.  Neither 
can  he  request  that  God  will  restrain  the  wickedness  of  men, 


130  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNIANISM.         Let.  VII. 

and  incline  them  to  good ;  for  that,  the  Arminian  thinks, 
would  be  such  an  "  efficient  control"  over  their  actions,  as  to 
destroy  their  free  agency.  Nor  yet  can  he  pray  for  grace  to 
enable  the  sinner  to  repent  and  believe;  for  he  contends  that 
every  man  has  already  sufficient  grace  and  ability.  And  as 
to  praying  for  more  grace,  he  holds  that  every  man  receives 
grace  accordingly  as  he  works  for  it ;  and  by  the  supposition, 
those  for  whom  he  prays,  have  been  "  careless  ones  from  their 
youth  upward."  The  Arminian  dare  not  ask  God  effectually 
to  overcome  the  rebellious  heart )  for  this  would  be  asking  for 
efficacious  or  special  grace,  not  bestowed  upon  all  men.  This 
would  represent  the  Divine  Being  as  "  partial,"  and  a  "  res- 
pecter of  persons." 

Besides,  "  What  the  creature  will  do,"  says  Watson  (vol. 
ii.  p.  435),  "in  fact  is  known  beforehand,  with  a  perfect  pre- 
science ;"  "  and  what  God  has  determined  to  do,  is  made  ap- 
parent by  what  he  actually  does,  which  can  be  no  new,  no 
sudden  thought,  but  known  and  purposed  from  eternity, 
in  view  of  the  actual  circumstances."  Now,  will  the  Armin- 
ian inform  us,  whether  he  expects  his  prayers  will  reverse 
the  perfect  foreknowledge  and  PURPOSE  of  God,  which 
Watson  affirms  to  be  "from  eternity?"  Well  may  the  Cal- 
vinist  bless  God  that  he  has  been  led  to  adopt  a  system  of 
doctrines  which  he  is  not  obliged  to  abandon,  whenever  he 
opens  his  lips  to  plead  for  the  favor  of  Heaven  upon  himself 
and  all  mankind. 

It  may  be  proper  now  to  glance  at  that  "  wise  and  power- 
ful bounding  and  otherwise  ordering  (regulating)  and  govern- 
ing of  moral  agents  and  their  acts,  to  his  own  holy  ends,"  * 
which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  God.  It  is  described  by 
Edwards  as  "  God's  moral  government  over  mankind,  his 
treating  them  as  moral  agents,  the  objects  of  commands, 
counsels,  calls,  &c.  and  as  consistent  with  a  determining  dis- 
posal of  all  events  of  every  kind,  in  his  providence,  either  by 
*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  5,  sec.  4. 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  181 

positive  efficiency  or  permission."  This  Divine  providence 
may  be  exerted  upon  the  minds  of  sinful  beings  in  various 
methods — either  by  a  restraining  influence,  a  subduing  and 

softening  influence,  a  directing  or  a  hardening  influence.* 
The  Scriptures  abound  in  examples  of  all  these  modes  of 
God's  universal  determining  providence.  Every  reader  of 
the  Bible  will  at  once  recall  the  illustrations.  We  have 
room  for  only  one,  but  that  a  most  striking  one;  we  mean 
the  case  of  Joseph  and  his  brethren.  Three  quarters  of  a 
century  before  the  birth  of  Jacob,  the  father  of  Joseph,  God 
made  to  Abraham  this  promise  :  "  Know  of  a  surety  that  thy 
seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs,  and  shall 
serve  them ;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four  hundred  years ; 
*  *  *  and  that  nation  will  I  judge,  and  afterward  they 
shall  come  out  with  great  substance."  *  *  *  "In  the 
fourth  generation  they  shall  come  hither  again."  -j"  Such 
was  the  decree  or  purpose  of  God.  How  was  it  fulfilled? 
Jacob  manifests  a  very  unwise  partiality  for  Joseph  ;  and 
his  brethren  hate  him  on  that  account.  Then  come  his 
dreams,  and  his  thoughtless  innocence  in  repeating  them, 
which  still  further  incensed  the  brothers.  Then  Joseph  is 
sent  alone  to  search  for  them,  while  tending  their  flocks ; 
they  take  advantage  of  the  solitude  of  the  place  and  his  un- 
protectedness,  and  conspire  to  murder  him,  but  are  restrained 
by  Reuben.  He  is  thrown  into  a  pit;  but  just  then  appear 
the  Ishmaelitish  traders,  going  down  to  Egypt ;  he  is  taken 
to  Egypt,  is  sold  for  a  slave  to  Potiphar,  is  slandered  and 
thrown  into  prison,  where  by  interpreting  the  dreams  of  his 
fellow  prisoners,  he  is  exalted  to  a  place  next  to  the  throne 
of  the  Pharaohs  !  How  wonderfully  complex  this  history  ! 
How  many  acts  of  the  will  and  outbursts  of  passion  were 
brought  into  play  before  the  event  was  reached  and  the  de- 

*  Dr.  Fisk  and  the  Conference  say :  "  God  blinds  and  hardens  their  hearts 
judicially,  as  a  just  punishment  for  abuse  of  their  agency." — Discourse,  p.  9. 
f  Gon.  15  :  13,  14,  17. 


132  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VII. 

cree  fulfilled ;  viz.  that  the  descendants  of  Abraham  should 
"  be  strangers  in  a  land  not  theirs  V  Now  let  us  look  at  the 
part  which  Divine  providence  had  in  all  this.  When  Joseph's 
brethren  were  made  known  to  him  (Gen.  45  :  5-8)  he  says 
to  them  :  "  Be  not  grieved,  nor  angry  with  yourselves  that 
ye  sold  me  hither ;  for  God  did  send  me  before  you  to  pre- 
serve life;  God  sent  me  before  to  preserve  you  a  posterity  in 
the  earth,  and  to  save  your  lives  by  a  great  deliverance.  So 
now  it  was  not  you  that  sent  me  hither,  but  God."  Here  is 
the  Divine  control  over  a  long  train  of  the  wicked  actions  of 
free  agents,  so  as  to  secure  the  fulfillment  of  the  decree.  It 
would,  of  course,  be  blasphemy  to  say  that  God  produced 
by  direct  influence,  or  approved  the  hatred  of  the  brethren  of 
Joseph,  &c.  But  thus  "  God  makes  the  wrath  of  man  to 
praise  him,  and  the  remainder  he  restrains."  It  is  curious 
to  read  Fletcher's  commentary  on  this  passage :  "I  had  rather 
believe,"  he  says,  "  that  Joseph  told  once  a  gross  untruth, 
than  suppose  God  perpetually  equivocates."  But  where  is 
the  necessity  for  either  foul  supposition  ?  "  You  must  not," 
he  adds,  "  raise  a  doctrine  upon  two  sentences  which  Joseph 
spake  as  a  fond  brother,  rather  than  as  a  judicious  divine  !"  * 
Let  this  example  suffice  to  show  what  Calvinists  mean 
when  they  affirm  that  "  God's  providence  extendeth  itself 
to  all  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and  that  not  by  a  bare  permis- 
sion." {"  "  Men  do  will  sin  as  sin,"  Edwards  well  remarks, 
"  and  so  are  the  authors  and  actors  of  it.  God  does  not  will 
sin  as  sin,  or  for  the  sake  of  any  thing  evil ;  though  it  be  his 
pleasure  so  to  order  things  that,  he  permitting,  sin  tvill  come 
to  pass,  for  the  sake  of  the  great  good  that,  under  his  disposal, 
shall  be  the  consequence."  Such  is  the  Calvinistic  exposition 
of  "  the  decrees  of  God,  whereby  for  his  own  glory  he  hath 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,"  including  sin  as  just 
explained.  Of  course,  to  allege  that,  according  to  our  doc- 
trine, "  God  maizes  men  sinners  that  he  may  have  a  pretense 
*  Fourth  Check.  f  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  5,  sec.  4. 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  133 

to  damn  them,"  *  is  a  plain  breach  of  a  certain  precept  of  the 
Decalogue. 

Nor  is  it  less  a  calumny  to  charge  Presbyterians  with  hold- 
ing the  doctrine  of  "  unconditional  election  and  reprobation;" 
in  other  words,  that  "some  are  elected  to  life  and  others  unto 
death,  wholly  without  respect  to  their  character  or  conduct, 
thus  leaving  sin  and  virtue  entirely  out  of  the  question,  &c."  f 
In  regard  to  those  who  are  so.ved,  our  Confession  says,  "the 
effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not  from 
any  thing  foreseen  in  man"  (of  the  nature  of  merit),  "but of 
his  mere  love  and  mercy."     Yet  it  also  says  that  God  "re- 
quireth  faith  as  the  condition  to  interest  them  in  him"  — 
(Christ).  |     This  is  well  explained  by  that  eminent  and  judi- 
cious Calvinist,  Leonard  Woods,  D.  D.  late  Professor  of  The- 
ology at  Andover  :  "  Some  (errorists)  have  asserted  that  the 
Divine  purpose  respecting  the  salvation  of  sinners  is  grounded 
altogether  on  the  foreknowledge  of  their  good  works,  and  in 
this  view  have  called  the  purpose  of  God  conditional."  "But 
those  things  which  are  spoken  of  as  conditions  on  the  part  of 
man,  are  not  so  in  the  sense  of  merit."     "  We  hold  that  im- 
penitent sinners  do  no  good  work  which  God  regards  as  a 
condition  of  their  being  renewed,  or  on  account  of  which  he 
has  promised  them  regeneration."     "Now  if  his  merciful  act 
in  their  renewal  to  holiuess,  is  in  this  sense  unconditional,  so 
is  his  previous  pmrpose"  to  perform  that  act.    Again  we  quote 
Professor  Woods:  "Does  God  save  sinners  unconditionally'? 
I  answer,  God  would  never  have  saved  them,  had  not  Christ 
interposed  and  made  an  atonement.     This,  then,  is  a  condi- 
tion of  human  salvation."     "The  condition  of  eternal  life  to 
be  performed  by  men,  is  repentance,  faith,  obedience.     They 
can  no  more  be  saved  without  these  than  without  the  death 
of  Christ."     "  Nor  did  God  purpose  to  save  them  without 
these  conditions."     Still,  as  Dr.  Woods  also  affirms,  "  these 

*  Objections,  Ac.  p.  83.  f  lb.  pp.  101, 104. 

%  Pp.  51,  156,  157. 

12 


134  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  VII. 

are  not  conditions  in  the  sense  of  merit."  "  Not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us."  Titus  3:5.*  We  admit  that  in  the  sense 
just  stated,  Presbyterians  do  teach  "unconditional  election," 
meaning  thereby  to  exclude  all  merit  of  good  works,  from  the 
idea  of  salvation  by  grace.  And  so  long  as  they  believe  the 
Scriptures,  they  can  teach  no  otherwise.  But  tbis  is  not  say- 
ing that  men  can  be  saved  without  faith  and  repentance. 

The  case  is  even  more  obvious  in  regard  to  what  Messrs. 
Foster  and  Simpson  call  "  unconditional  reprobation ;"  i.  e. 
"  men  are  damned  without  any  fault  of  theirs" — "given  an 
existence  which  they  are  compelled  to  employ  in  sin,"  &c! 
If  any  thing  further  is  necessary  on  this  point,  we  refer  to  the 
Commentary  of  that  eminently  judicious  writer,  Dr.  Scott : 
"  Wickedness  foreseen,"  he  says,  "  is  doubtless  the  cause  of 
the  Lord's  purpose  to  condemn  ;  because  it  is  of  a  man's  self 
by  nature,  and  God  condemns  none  who  do  not  justly  deserve 
it.  But  holiness  foreseen  in  a  fallen  creature  cannot  be  the 
cause  of  his  election ;  because  it  is  the  effect  of  new-creating 
grace  and  never  comes  from  any  other  source.  Thus  preten- 
tion," continues  Dr.  Scott,  "  or  non-election  of  a  fallen  crea- 
ture, is  not  gratuitous,  but  merited;  election,  shown  in  regen- 
eration, is  gratuitous."  "  God  may  justly  leave  fallen  crea- 
tures to  themselves,  to  proceed  in  rebellion  and  sink  into 
destruction.  He  might  justly  have  left  all  :  it  is  of  infinite 
mercy  that  any  are  saved."  "  Thus  he  makes  them  (the 
saved)  willing  by  regeneration,  as  says  the  Psalmist,  '  Thy 
people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power ;'  but  those 
who  are  not  thus  willing  and  diligent,  are  not  made  unwilling 
by  any  positive  act  of  God ;  but  their  unwillingness  is  the 
consequence  of  pride,  self-will,  &c."  "  The  words,  '  I  will 
have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,'  imply  that  all  de- 
served wrath  :  so  that  '  the  lump  of  clay  in  the  hands  of  the 
potter,'  must  refer  to  men  existing  in  God's  foreknowledge  as 
*  Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  50,  51. 


Let.  VII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  135 

fallen  creatures."  "The  language  used"  (Rom.  9  :  22,  23), 
adds  Dr.  Scott,  "viz.  'vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction,' 
is  uot  iliit  God  had  l fitted  tfu  m  ;'  but  of  the  vessels  of  mercy 
it  is,  'he  had  afore  prepared  them  unto  glory.'  "  *  The  dif- 
ference in  the  two  forms  of  speech  is  striking  and  instructive, 
as  Dr.  Scott  well  observes.  Is  this  the  same  as  "  uncondi- 
tional reprobation,"  or  that  "  God  makes  men  sinners  as  a 
pretense  to  damn  them?" 

It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  "  Reprobation"  as  now  ex- 
plained, is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 
"  God  cannot  punish  creatures  as  such,"  says  Dr.  Ridgely, 
"  but  as  criminals  and  rebels ;  and  he  must  be  supposed  to 
have  considered  them  as  such,  when  in  his  eternal  purpose  he 
determined  to  punish  them."  f  Is  this  unconditional  repro- 
bation? In  like  manner,  Dr.  John  Owen,  that  giant  Calvin- 
ist  of  two  centuries  ago,  second  only  to  the  illustrious  Calvin 
himself,  when  accounting  for  the  fact  that  "  the  work  of  the 
Iloly  Spirit  is  often  ineffectual  and  imperfect  upon  the  hearts 
of  men,"  employs  the  following  language  :  "  They  faint  not 
for  want  of  strength  to  proceed ;  but  by  a  free  act  of  their 
own  will,  tlici/  refuse  the  grace  which  is  further  tendered  unto 
them  in  the  gospel.  This  will,  and  its  resistance  to  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  God  is  pleased  in  some  to  take  away ;  *  *  * 
but  the  sin  of  men  and  their  guilt  is  in  it,  where  it  is  con- 
tinued." |  Is  this  the  same  as  to  say :  "  God's  eternal 
decree  *  *  compels  them  to  sin  till  they  drop  into  ever- 
lasting burnings."  § 

Such,  then,  is  the  doctrine  of  Reprobation  as  held  in  the 
Presbyterian  church.  Woods,  Scott,  Ridgely,  Owen,  are 
standard  authorities  among  sound  Calvinists.  To  allege  that 
such  men  did  not  comprehend  the  logical  bearings  of  their 
own  scheme  of  doctrine,  but  by  such  statements  only  involved 
themselves  in   "great  confusion,  perplexity  and   contradic- 

*  See  his  Com.  on  Roui.  9.  f  Vol.  i.  p.  491. 

%  On  the  Spirit,  vol.  i.  p.  373.  §  Foster's  "  Objections,"  &c.  p.  100. 


136  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.        Let.  VIII 

tion,"  *  will  serve  only  to  produce  a  smile  on  the  countenance 
of  every  intelligent  man.  Especially  when  such  charges 
originate  with  those  who  had  previously  prejudged  Calvinism 
to  be  worse  than  Atheism. 

*■  


LETTER  VIII. 

PREDESTINATION— ELECTION— REPROBATION. 

Rev.  Sir — The  doctrine  of  Election,  as  it  has  been  stated 
in  previous  Letters,  would  seem  to  possess  no  element  which 
ought  to  be  offensive  to  any  devout  mind.  It  is  God's  pur- 
pose of  grace  and  mercy  toward  his  fallen  creatures,  and  em- 
braces chiefly  the  following  propositions  : 

1.  Man  is  by  nature  a  guilty  and  ruined  being,  having 
hopelessly  destroyed  himself  by  his  sin. 

2.  His  most  merciful  Sovereign  provides,  at  infinite  ex- 
pense, an  all-sufficient  remedy  in  the  life  and  death  of  his  Son. 

3.  This  remedy  the  whole  race  of  guilty  rebels,  if  left  to 
their  native  stubbornness  of  heart,  would  certainly  reject  and 
despise,  and  thus  increase  their  guilt  and  punishment. 

4.  He  sends  his  Holy  Spirit  to  subdue  and  soften  the  hearts 
of  all  who  ever  become  reconciled — having  graciously  pur- 
posed to  pardon  and  restore  as  many  of  the  rebel  race  as  to 
his  infinite  wisdom  seemed  most  consistent  with  his  holy  and 
beneficent  authority  in  the  universe. 

5.  This  system  of  grace  was  determined  and  agreed  upon 
in  the  counsels  of  eternity,  in  view  of  the  helpless  ruin  and 
misery  of  mankind — thus  election  is  eternal,  not  a  sudden 
and  unexpected  provision  for  the  occasion. 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  election  to  eternal  life.     But  the 
question    is    instantly   presented :  Why  does  not   God    save 
more — why  not  save  all  ?     This  inquiry  is  urged  with  great 
*  Foster's  "Objoctions,"  p.  29. 


Let.  VIII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  137 

pertinacity  by  Universalists,  and  seems  to  have  been  adopted 
by  some  Arminians.  We  might  retort  upon  the  latter  by 
inquiring  :  Why  did  not  God  provide  salvation  for  fallen  an- 
gels ?  Why,  since  all  power  is  in  his  hands,  did  he  create 
two  races  of  beings  which  were  infallibly  certain  to  be  in- 
volved in  sin,  and  many  of  them  to  suffer  endless  misery  ? 
Why  does  he  continue,  even  under  the  gospel,  to  bring  into 
being  thousands  upon  thousands  in  each  succeeding  genera- 
tion, who,  he  infallibly  foresees,  will,  after  a  brief  existence 
in  this  world,  be  plunged  in  the  abyss  of  ceaseless  sin  and 
hopeless  suffering?  Yea,  millions  whose  guilt  and  misery 
will  be  greatly  increased  by  abused  mercies — salvation  offered 
but  despised. 

These  are  questions  which  are  too  high  for  us — we  cannot 
attain  unto  them — for  who  by  searching  can  find  out  God? 
Yet  they  are  equally  embarrassing  to  the  Arminian.  In 
cases  of  treason  or  rebellion  against  human  governments,  we 
know  that  mercy  has  often  been  exercised  toward  a  part,  even 
those  not  less  guilty  than  others;  while  the  interests  of  jus- 
tice and  the  safety  of  the  innocent  seemed  to  demand  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  penalty  of  the  law  upon  the  rest.  A  procedure 
which  is  eminently  wise  and  merciful,  and  even  the  dictate  of 
benevolence  in  order  to  the  stability  and  permanence  of  lawful 
authority,  regarding,  as  it  must,  the  welfare  of  the  whole, 
may  well  be  transferred  from  the  Executive  of  Earth  to  the 
Supreme  Executive  of  Heaven.  Who  is  prepared  to  say  that 
if  the  whole  human  family  were  saved,  the  interests  of  justice 
would  not  have  suffered  an  eclipse  ?  Who  will  pretend  to 
affirm  that  the  welfare  of  the  whole  moral  universe  would  not 
have  been  compromised — the  order  and  peace  of  the  creation 
been  exposed  to  no  disaster,  if  all  men  were  restored  to  favor? 

The  Universalist  exalts  the  goodness  and  compassion  of 

God    at  the  expense  of  his  inflexible   justice  and  holiness ; 

and    some   Arminians    do     likewise.     "God,"     says    Adam 

Clarke,  "  hates  nothing  that  he  has  made.     He  cannot  hate, 

12* 


138  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  VIII. 

because  he  is  love."  (Com.  on  1  John  4 : 8.)  We  grant  that 
God  does  not  hate  his  creatures,  considered  merely  as  his 
creatures,  apart  from  moral  qualities.  But  did  not  he  teach 
his  ancient  church  to  sing — "  Thou  hatest  all  workers  of  ini- 
quity?" Psalm  5:5.  While  he  reveals  himself  as  "the 
Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  forgiving  iniquity, 
transgression  and  sin" — does  he  not  add — "  he  will  by  no 
means  clear  the  guilty" — "  but  visits  the  iniquity  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion of  them  that  hate  him  ?"  If  in  one  place  it  is  said, 
"  God  is  love" — if,  as  Dr.  Clarke  suggests,  He  is  never  called 
holiness  or  justice, — he  is  called  "a  consuming  fire." 
u  Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him  ;  yet  justice  and 
judgment  (not  love)  are  the  habitation  of  his  throne."  It  is 
not  true,  therefore,  that  according  to  the  Scriptures,  "  love 
seems  to  be  the  essence  of  his  nature,  and  all  the  other  attri- 
butes to  be  only  modijications  of  this."*  Such  representa- 
tions of  the  Great  Being  before  whose  throne  cherubim  and 
seraphim  cry  continually — "  Holy,  Holy,  Holy  is  the  Lord 
of  Hosts" — are  serious  errors  and  lead  to  mischievous  results. 

In  answer  to  the  inquiry,  Why  are.  not  all  saved?  genuine 
modesty  will  instruct  both  the  Arminian  and  the  Calvinist  to 
say  with  our  blessed  Saviour,  on  a  similar  occasion — "  Even 
so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight."  "  Secret 
things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God ;  but  those  which  are 
revealed  unto  us  and  our  children." 

III.  A  third  topic  now  demands  some  further  attention  in 
connection  with  Predestination.  It  relates  to  the  character 
and  jinal  destiny  of  those  of  mankind  who  will  never  realize 
the  saving  blessings  of  the  gospel,  but  will  perish  under  the 
Divine  wrath.  The  views  of  Calvinists  upon  these  subjects 
have  furnished  abundant  matter  of  denunciation  and  misrep- 
resentation to  our  Methodist  neighbors.  "  Does  it  come  to 
pass  that  some  are  lost?"  inquires  Dr.  Fisk  (Disc.  pp.  26, 

*Clarke's  Coin,  on  John  5  :  8. 


Lax.  VIIL  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  139 

27).  "Then  this  was  ordained.  Was  sin  necessary  as  a  pre- 
tense to  damn  them  ?  Then  this  was  ordained.  They  (Cal- 
vinists)  must  believe  that  God  determined  to  create  men  and 
angels  for  the  express  purpose  to  damn  them  eternally ;  that 
he  determined  to  introduce  sin,  and  influence  men  to  commit 
sin,  and  harden  them  in  it,  that  they  might  be  fit  subjects  of 
his  wrath,"  &c.  &c.  &c.  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson  repeat 
the  same  story — "  Men  *  *  *  are  appointed  to  damna- 
tion without  respect  to  their  deeds."  "  Their  character  and 
conduct  are  forced  upon  them."  "  They  were  given  an  exist- 
ence which  they  were  compelled  to  employ  in  sin,  that  a 
pretense  might  be  furnished  infinite  cruelty,  &c  !  "* 

It  requires  the  exercise  of  some  patience  to  frame  a  calm 
answer  to  such  arguments  !  But  if  these  Arminians  had  ever 
read  the  Presbyterian  Confession,  they  would  have  found 
written,  of  those  who  perish,  that  "God  was  pleased  to  pass 
them  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their 
sin."  (Conf.  chap.  3,  sec.  7.)  And  of  those  "  who  do 
never  truly  come  to  Jesus  Christ,"  that  "  they  are  justly  left 
in  unbelief,  for  their  willful  neglect  and  contempt  of  the  grace 
offered  them."  (Conf.  p.  180.)  The  reason,  therefore,  why 
they  are  not  saved  is,  that  they  "  do  not  come  to  Jesus  Christ." 
They  do  not  come  to  Jesus  Christ,  because  "  they  are  justly 
left  in  unbelief."  And  they  are  justly  left  in  unbelief,  be- 
cause of  "  their  willful  neglect  and  contempt  of  the  grace 
offered  them."  "  If  they  will  add  new  obstinacy  and  hard- 
ness to  their  minds  and  hearts,"  says  Dr.  Owen,  the  great 
advocate  of  Calvinism ;  "  if  they  will  fortify  themselves 
against  the  word  with  prejudice  and  dislike;  if  they  will  re- 
sist its  operations  through  their  lusts  and  corrupt  affections, 
God  may  justly  leave  them  to  perish,  and  to  be  filled  with 
the  fruit  of  their  own  ways."  "  They  perish  not  by  a  mere 
continuance  in  the  state  wherein  the  word  finds  them,  but  by 

*  Objections,  &c.  pp.  98,  97,  and  a  large  part  of  the  book  is  in  the  saino 
general  style. 


140  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  VIII. 

rejecting  the  counsel  of  God  made  known  to  them  for  their 
healing  and  recovery."*  Is  this  the  same  with  "  influencing 
men  to  sin,  and  hardening  them  in  it,  as  a  pretense  to  damn 
them?"  The  doctrine  of  permissive  decrees  is  the  common 
belief,  as  we  have  shown,  of  our  ministers  and  churches — and 
therefore  all  such  statements  as  those  quoted  from  Dr.  F.  and 
Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson,  are  harmless,  except  in  deceiving 
the  simple. 

But  Dr.  F.  and  his  publishers  of  the  General  Conference, 
assume  another  offensive  position.  These,  they  say,  are 
'•'  smooth  things,"  designed  to  conceal  the  genuine  features  of 
Reprobation — and  to  support  this  new  form  of  assault,  they 
misquote  the  Presbyterian  Confession  (chap.  3)  as  follows : 
"  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  hath  chosen  in  Christ 
unto  everlasting  glory,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works."  From  this  they  seem  to  infer  that  the  reprobate  are 
equally  doomed  "without  foresight  of  unbelief  and  wicked 
works" — a  misrepresentation  entirely  gratuitous. 

In  the  foregoing  quotation  from  chap.  3,  sec.  5,  Dr.  Fisk 
breaks  off  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence,  thus — "  without  any 
foresight  of  faith  or  good  works — as  conditions  or  causes 
moving  him  thereto" — which  states  simply  the  fact  that  as  all 
men  are  "  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,"  and  merit  only 
everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  the  de- 
sign of  mercy,  the  whole  plan  of  salvation  in  decree  and  exe- 
ecution,  does  not  flow  from  any  merit  or  goodness  of  the 
sinner  "  moving  Him"  (God)  to  elect  him — the  originating 
cause  of  election,  and  the  ground  of  the  determination  to  save 
the  sinner,  was  not  a  "foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,"  for  of 
these  he  would  have  none  until  grace  should  bestow  them ; 
but  simply  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God.  And  indeed,  this 
seems  to  be  the  view  of  of  Dr.  F.  himself,  when  he  tells  us 
(p.  15),  "  God  did  decree  to  elect  in  Christ  all  that  should 
*  Exposition  of  tho  Hebrews,  vol.  ii.  p.  354. 


Let.  VIII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  141 

believe  unto  salvation ;  and  this  decree  proceeds  from  his 
own  goodness,  and  is  not  built  on  any  goodness  of  the  crea- 
ture." But  on  the  next  page  he  abandons  this  sound  Calviu- 
ism,  and  seriously  asserts  that  "  the  sinner  is  elected  because 
he  receives  Christ/'  which  is  the  same  as  to  say,  "he  is 
elected  because  of  something  done  by  himself,  some  work  of 
his  own ;  and  if  Dr.  Fisk  admit  receiving  Christ  to  be  a  good 
work  (and  certainly  it  is  not  an  evil  work),  then  he  is 
elected  because  of  his  own  goodness  in  receiving  Christ,  al- 
though this  writer  had  said,  a  few  lines  above,  that  the  de- 
cree to  elect  is  not  built  on  any  goodness  of  the  creature  ! 
Alas,  for  a  system  that  must  be  supported  by  such  contradic- 
tions ! 

In  a  previous  Letter  several  quotations  were  made  from  the 
great  work  of  Turretinc,  who  died  in  1687,  long  before 
Arminian  Methodism  had  an  existence,  and  of  course  near  a 
hundred  years  before  she  had  such  power  as  to  force  Calvinists 
into  logical  hiding  places  !  What  were  his  views  of  Reproba- 
tion ?  According  to  Turretinc  it  includes  two  acts,  a  negative 
and  a^osiViue.  The  negative  act  is  that  by  which  the  repro- 
bate are  passed  by,  and  are  not  effectually  called  and  regen- 
erated by  the  grace  and  Spirit  of  God.  Regarded  as  involved 
in  the  common  mass  of  sin  and  corruption,  being  "  children 
of  wrath  even  as  others,"  God  is  under  no  obligation  to  savo 
them,  nor  to  bestow  any  favor  upon  them ;  and  the  sins  of 
which  they  are  guilty,  are  the  natural  fruits  of  their  depraved 
hearts,  and  follow  the  absence  of  restraining  grace  as  naturally 
as  darkness  succeeds  the  absence  of  the  sun.  Nor  is  God  the 
cause  or  author  of  their  sins,  except  as  the  sun  is  the  cause  of 
cold  or  darkness.  "God  denies  the  grace  which  they  them- 
selves are  unwilling  to  receive,  or  to  retain,  and  which  they 
voluntarily  despise,  since  they  desire  nothing  less  than  to  be 
under  the  control  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  does  not  deny 
grace  that  they  may  sin,  but  in  just  punishment  for  their 
Bin." 


142  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  VIII. 

The  positive  act  of  reprobation,  according  to  our  author,  "  is 
that  by  which  God  has  resolved  to  inflict  merited  punishment 
upon  persons  remaining  in  a  state  of  nature,  and  having  vol- 
untarily abused  (sua  sponte  abusos)  the  light  of  nature  and  of 
the  gospel  ministered  unto  them."  "  Sin  must  necessarily  be 
supposed  as  the  condition  in  him  who  is  reprobated;"  "nei- 
ther can  there  be  in  God  the  will  to  punish  any  but  a  sinner." 

"  Reprobation,"  he  continues,  "  may  be  considered  abso- 
lutely or  comparatively .  In  the  absolute  sense,  it  is  rightly 
ascribed  to  the  corruption  of  the  natural  man,  which  has  made 
him  justly  an  object  of  reprobation.  When,  therefore,  it  is 
inquired  why  any  man  is  reprobated,  it  is  well  replied  — 
because,  by  his  sin,  he  was  deserving  of  such  treatment.  But 
when  the  subject  is  regarded  in  the  comparative  light,  when 
it  is  inquired  why  one  wicked  person  is  reprobated  rather  than 
another  (cur  unus  proe  alio  reprobatur),  it  must  be  referred 
to  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  who  elects  or  passes  by  according 
to  his  sovereign  will :  sin  being  common  to  all,  cannot  be 
alleged  as  the  ground  of  this  distinction."  "God  may  be 
said  to  predestinate  to  sin  and  hardness  of  heart,  not  efficiently, 
but permissively,  and  so  as  to  direct  and  overrule  the  event" 
— non  effective,  sed  permissive  et  directive,  quatenus  illam 
permittere  et  ordinare  decrevit.  Thus  he  expressly  disavows 
the  idea  of  positively  hardening  the  sinner. 

Dr.  Dick  takes  the  same  ground  and  adopts  substantially 
the  same  distinctions.  In  the  negative  act  of  pretention,  he 
says,  "  God  found  men  in  sin,  and  in  leaving  them  there, 
he  did  no  wrong,  and  was  chargeable  with  no  cruelty."  Of 
the  positive  act  of  condemnation,  he  adds — "  There  can  be  no 
will  in  God  to  punish  any  but  sinners  ;  nor  could  the  inten- 
tion be  just  without  respect  to  disobedience."  Yet  when  he 
views  the  subject  in  its  comparative  aspect,  he  says — "Both 
classes  (elect  and  reprobate)  appeared  in  the  eyes  of  God  to 
be  guilty,  polluted  and  worthy  of  death.  Their  sinfulness, 
therefore,  could  not  be  the  reason  of  the  rejection  in  the  one 


Let.  VIII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  143 

case,  rather  than  in  the  other  " — since  it  was  common  to  both, 
and  "did  not  cause  the  rejection  of  those  who  are  saved."*  "We 
do  not  ascribe  to  God  an  absolute  power  to  consign  his  crea- 
tures to  misery  without  consideration  of  their  guilt.  *  *  * 
Such  a  Being  could  never  be  the  object  of  our  confidence  and 
love."  "  Pretention  is  the  act  of  God  in  the  character  of  a 
judge,  fixing  beforehand  the  punishment  of  the  guilty; — sin 
is  the  cause  of  their  destination  to  perdition." 

Ridgely,  whose  "  Body  of  Divinity  "  has  had  a  very  wide 
circulation  both  in  Europe  and  in  this  country,  and  was 
especially  approved  by  the  learned  Professors  of  Aberdeen 
and  other  divines  of  Scotland,  takes  the  same  ground.  "It 
is  not  to  be  supposed,"  he  says,  "that  the  decree  has  in  itself 
a  proper  efficiency  to  produce  the  thing  decreed;  for  then 
there  would  be  no  difference  between  an  eternal  decree  and 
an  eternal  production  of  things,  contrary  to  the  Apostle — ■ 
'  whom  he  predestinated,  them  he  glorified.'  "  Rom.  8  :  30. 
"  God,  in  his  eternal  purpose,  considered  man  as  fallen  *  * 
and  he  might  have  left  the  whole  world  to  perish  without 
being  liable  to  the  charge  of  injustice."  And  in  commenting 
on  those  words — "whom  he  will,  he  hardeneth  "  (Rom.  9  : 
18),  he  says,  "  God  forbid  that  any  one  should  think  that 
there  is  a  positive  act  contained  in  those  words,  as  though  God 
infused  hardness  into  the  hearts  of  any."f  Pages  might  be 
transcribed  to  the  same  effect,  from  all  our  leading  theologians. 
Yet  such  Calvinists  as  these  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson 
represent  as  teaching — "God  made  them  sinners,  that  he 
might  have  a  pretense  to  torment  them  for  ever,  to  the  glory 
of  his  sovereign  justice." 

It  has  been  proved  in  a  former  Letter,^;  that  these  Armin- 
ians  hold  and  teach  "  the  eternal  and  irresistible  decree  of 
Reprobation •"  and  according  to  Fletcher,  "the  number  of 
the  elect  is  certain,"  and  of  course  the  number  of  the  rcpro- 

*  Lecture  36.  f  Vol.  i.  p.  485,  489. 

%  Letter  VI.  at  tho  beginning. 


144  DIFFICULTIES   OF  AKMINIANISM.         Let.  VIII. 

bate  is  equally  certain,  in  the  Divine  foreknowledge.  When 
Mr.  Wesley  was  forty  years  old,  1743,  and  had  been  nearly 
twenty  years  a  minister,  he  wrote  as  follows  :  "  I  do  not  deny 
(though  I  cannot  prove)  that  he  (God)  has  unconditionally 
elected  some  persons  to  eternal  glory."*  But  Arminians 
most  vehemently  argue  that  "  unconditional  election,"  in  the 
case  of  adults,  includes  "unconditional  reprobation."  Of 
course  Mr.  Wesley  could  "  not  deny  unconditional  reproba- 
tion," as  a  necessary  consequence  of  "  unconditional  election." 
The  doctrine  of  efficacious,  or  irresistible  grace,  has  been 
the  topic  of  much  denunciation  to  Arminians.  But  here,  as 
in  other  cases,  they  generally  contend  with  "  a  man  of  straw." 
Calvinists  believe  and  teach  that  men  may  "  resist  the  Holy 
Ghost" — "grieve  and  even  quench  the  Spirit."  But  the 
question  is  not  whether  men  often  stifle  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit  of  grace,  but  whether,  when  it  is  the  good  pleasure  of 
God  to  convert  and  save  a  sinner,  he  is  able  to  employ  suffi- 
cient power  to  secure  his  object  ?  In  other  words,  whether 
God  is  able  to  use  means  and  influences  which  will  overcome 
his  depraved  heart  and  all  its  resistance;  or  whether  the 
sinner  may  so  resist  the  Spirit  and  grace  of  God,  as  to  over- 
come the  Almighty,  and  defeat  his  design  or  purpose  of 
mercy  ?  Calvinists  believe  that  God  is  able  to  conquer  all 
resistance.  Arminians  take  the  opposite  view,  viz.  that  grace 
is  not  so  irresistible,  but  that  the  sinner  in  many  cases  gets 
the  better  of  Omnipotence.  Of  course  it  would  be  folly  to 
pray  to  the  Divine  Being  to  do  what  he  is  unable  to  perform. 
On  this  scheme,  the  prayers  should  be  offered  to  the  sinner, 
to  obtain  his  "good  leave,"  as  Wesley  has  it,  to  be  converted, 
and  then  the  work  would  be  easy. 

Mr.  Wesley  admits  that "  all  men  are  by  nature  not  only  sick," 
but  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins" — and  that  "  it  is  not  pos- 

*  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  289.  The  editor  of  his  works  says  these  "extreme 
concessions  were  made  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry,  for  peace  sake" — a 
mistake 


Let.  VIII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  145 

sible  for  them  to  do  anything  well  till  God  raises  them  from 
the  dead."*  This  agrees  with  the  Methodist  Article  VIII. — 
"  We  have  no  power  to  do  good  works  pleasant  and  accept- 
able without  the  grace  of  God,  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that 
we  may  have  a  good  will  and  working  in  us  while  we  have  that 
good  will."  How  then  are  these  helpless  ones  to  be  deliv- 
ered ?  Mr.  W.  answers — "  I  believe  that  the  grace  of  God 
which  brings  faith  and  thereby  salvation  into  the  soul,  is  ir- 
resistible at  that  moment."  Again,  "I  do  not  deny  that  in 
some  souls,  the  grace  of  God  is  so  far  irresistible  that  they 
CANNOT  but  believe  and  be  finally  saved."-f  For  the  most 
part,  however,  he  thinks  "grace  does  not  act  irresistibly." 
But  if  it  may  act  thus  in  some  cases,  consistently  with  man's 
free  agency  and  the  nature  of  true  virtue  and  holiness,  then 
it  may  so  act  in  all  cases. 

Speaking  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  Mr.  Watson  says :  "  Can  a 
man  be  conceived  further  from  Christianity  than  Saul,  the 
moment  prior  to  his  reception  of  it."  "  His  heart  burned 
with  rancor  and  cruelty."  "  A  hotter  brand  surely  was 
never  quenched  in  the  blood  of  the  Saviour."  "  Only  a  mira- 
cle could  reclaim  such  a  man. "J  "It  will  be  freely  allowed," 
he  adds,  "  that  men  are  sometimes  suddenly  and  irresistibly 
awakened  to  a  sense  of  their  guilt  and  danger  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.  *  *  *  Sometimes  even  independent  of  any  ex- 
ternal means  at  all;"§  and  Wesley  says  "there  are  exempt 
cases,  wherein  the  overwhelming  power  of  Divine  grace  does 
for  a  time  work  as  irresistibly  as  lightning  from  heaven."^" 

These  and  many  similar  statements  from  leading  Armin- 
ians,  would  seem  to  teach  with  great  clearness  the  doctrine  of 

*  Sermon  on  working  out  Salvation.  If  men  are  by  nature  "dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,"  and  must  be  "begotten  again,"  be  "raised  from  the  dead 
and  quickened  into  life,"  "created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,"  Ac.  it  would  ap- 
pear to  be  an  easy  question :  What  sort  of  power  is  required  to  perform 
these  mighty  acts  ? 

|  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  289  %  Sermon  on  Conversion  of  Saul. 

§  Inst,  part  2,  chap.  28.  \  Sermon  on  Spread  of  the  Gospel. 

13 


146  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.        Let.  VIII. 

Paul — "  It  is  God  who  works  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  own  good  pleasure."  The  great  difficulty  is  to  recon- 
cile these  correct  statements  with  others  from  the  same  gene- 
ral source.  "  Consult  your  own  experience,"  say  Messrs. 
Foster  and  Simpson;  *  *  *  "you  will  find  that  your 
consent  was  not  produced  by  irresistible  power."  But  how 
was  it  produced  ?  "  At  last,  they  say,  in  the  utmost  ex- 
tremity, forgetting  all,  by  a  mighty  exertion,  (viz.  of 
your  own  power,  as  we  are  obliged  to  conclude)  you  embraced 
the  atoning  sacrifice — you  believed."  "  Then  came  rest."* 
We  can  very  readily  believe,  from  the  character  of  his  book, 
that  Mr.  Foster's  conversion  was  the  result  of  some  such 
mighty  exertion  of  his  own  power  ! 

The  chief  difference  between  the  "  irresistible  grace"  of 
Arminians  and  that  of  Calvinists,  appears  to  be  in  this :  we 
teach  that  when  it  pleases  God  according  to  his  own  purpose 
and  grace,  to  change  the  heart  and  convert  any  particular 
soul,  he  can  DO  it — he  can  work  in  that  soul  "  both  to 
will  and  to  do  of  his  own  good  pleasure,"  as  Paul  affirms.  The 
Arminian,  on  the  contrary,  believes  that  this  good  pleasure 
and  design  of  God  to  produce  conversion  is  often  frustrated 
and  defeated,  because  the  sinner  refuses  to  make  "  the  mighty 
exertion"  necessary  to  his  salvation  !  Thus  they  tell  us : 
God  does  for  such  "  all  that  infinite  wisdom,  almighty  power, 
and  boundless  love  can  do,  without  forcing  them  to  be 
saved."  f  But  if  this  be  so,  what  folly  to  pray  to  God  to  do 
what  he  cannot  do  !  Why  not  offer  the  prayers  to  the  sinner, 
beseeching  him  to  make  "  the  mighty  exertion"  and  thus 
enable  God  "  to  create  a  clean  heart  and  renew  a  right  spirit 
within  him  !"  This  is  obviously  the  only  right  method  of 
proceeding  in  the  case,  particularly  as  all  men  have  "sufficient 
grace"  and,  of  course,  need  no  more  ! 

So  also,  when  explaining  Rom.  8  :  28,  "  whom  he  did 
foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the 
*  Objections,  &c.  pp.  172,  173.  f  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  6. 


Let.  VIII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  147 

imago  of  his  Son,"  Wesley  says:  "God  predestinated  to  be 
conformed"  "  those  who  are  conformable,"  i.  e.  that  could  be 
conformed.  But  if  this  has  any  meaning,  it  means  that  God 
undertakes  the  easy  cases,  which  his  power  can  manage  ! 
But  the  very  hard  cases  are  not  predestinated,  not  being  con- 
f  nnable  ! 

It  was  shown,  in  a  former  Letter,  that  an  intelligent  being 
thus  crossed  and  disappointed  in  his  most  benevolent  plans 
and  intentions,  must  be  infinitely  miserable ;  but  besides  this, 
if  one  person  may  successfully  resist  the  most  gracious  designs 
of  the  Infinite  One,  there  was  no  certainty  that  any  should 
be  saved,  even  though  salvation  was  bought  with  an  infinite 
price.  Thus  the  Divine  promise  to  Christ  :  "  He  shall  see  of 
the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall 
prosper  in  his  hand,"  might  have  been  falsified. 

Thus  Satan,  according  to  Arminians,  often  has  the  mas- 
tery, and  succeeds  in  controlling  and  subjecting  the  wills  of 
men,  where  God  fails  of  his  designs.  Nor  is  there  any  cer- 
tainty that  in  the  future  world  the  same  result  will  not 
appear.  Satan,  indeed,  may  be  bound ;  but  if  the  human 
will  of  our  first  parents,  in  a  state  of  perfect  holiness,  could 
not  be  controlled,  but  on  the  contrary  defeated  the  purposes 
of  the  Almighty,  who  "  used  all  means  in  his  power  to  secure 
the  accomplishment  of  his  will,"  viz.  that  Adam  as  a  free 
agent  should  remain  holy — if,  I  say,  such  a  disaster  occurred 
in  the  garden  of  Eden,  in  defiance  of  all  the  efforts,  designs 
and  resources  of  God,  why  may  it  not  occur  in  heaven  ?  It 
is  easy  to  say  that  foreknowledge  forbids  the  possibility  of 
such  a  result.  But  that  only  increases  the  difficulty,  by  sug- 
gesting the  idea  of  fate — a  something  independent  of  and 
controlling  the  goodness,  and  wisdom,  and  perfect  plans  of  the 
Almighty  !  Nor  can  any  reason  be  assigned,  on  Arminian 
principles,  why  souls  which  so  often  "fall  from  grace"  in 
this  life,  and  that,  too,  after  they  have  attained  to  "perfec- 
tion," may  not  fall  even,  from  heaven!     The  holy  angels,  too, 


148  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.        Let.  VIII. 

have  no  better  assurance  of  everlasting  life.  It  follows, 
therefore,  on  Arminian  principles,  that  at  some  future  period, 
all  the  redeemed  and  all  the  holy  angels  may,  like  Adam,  fall 
from  purity,  and  the  work  of  Christ  be  utterly  and  finally 
frustrated.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  promise  of  God 
forbids  such  a  supposition.  Perhaps  he  has  promised  what 
he  cannot  perform  !  If  our  first  parents  and  thousands  of 
the  unconverted  have  defeated  his  will  to  make  or  keep  them 
holy — if  his  agency  and  will  have  proved  so  resistible,  that 
thousands  have  successfully  resisted  it,  in  defiance  of  all  the 
resources  of  infinite  power  and  benevolence — who  can  tell 
but  that  it  may  be  so  in  the  future  world  ?  Certainly  no 
Arminian  has  any  security  on  which  to  build  his  confidence 
of  eternal  glory. 

It  has  been  demonstrated  that  irresistible  grace  was  taught 
by  Mr.  Wesley ;  but  it  is  taught  by  modern  Arminians  in  a 
much  more  offensive  sense.     We  prove  this  as  follows  : 

1.  Dr.  Clarke  teaches  that  "as  in  Adam  guilt  came  upon  all 
men,  so  through  Christ  the,  free  gift  comes  upon  all  men  (in- 
cluding the  heathen)  unto  justification  of  life"  — "  and  a 
measure  of  the  Divine  light  is  actually  communicated  to  every 
heart."  "God,"  he  says,  "has  not  denied  to  the  Gentiles 
the  light  and  influence  of  his  Spirit."*  This  light,  he 
teaches,  is  communicated  to  the  Gentiles,  "as  in  Adam  guilt 
came  upon  all  men  ;"  which,  so  far  as  relates  to  his  posterity, 
is,  of  course,  irresistible. 

Mr.  Fletcher  also  teaches,  in  the  most  express  terms,  the 
irresistible  nature  of  this  universal  grace,  thus  :  "  The  bene- 
fits of  *  *  *  a  day  of  salvation  and  of  the  free  gift,  came 
upon  all  men  to  the  justification  mentioned,  Rom.  5  :  18 ; 
and  so  far  from  depending  on  the  will  of  the  creature,  *  * 
they  depend  no  more  upon  us  than  our  sight  and  the 
light  of  the  sun!  All  those  blessings  *  *  *  are 
irresistibly  bestowed  upon  us  for  Christ's   sake,     *     *     * 

*  Com.  on  Rom.  5. 


Let.  VIII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  149 

As  the  Divine  image  *  *  *  was  at  first  bestowed 
upon  our  first  parents,  *  *  *  our  penitential  grace 
conies  immediately  and  irresistibly  from  God  our  Redeemer. 
*  *  *  I  say  irresistibly}  because  God  does  not  leave  to 
our  option  whether  we  shall  receive  a  talent  of  redeeming 
grace  or  not,  any  more  than  he  left  it  to  Adam's  choice 
whether  he  should  receive  five  talents  of  creative  grace  or 
not."  *  From  these  extracts,  it  appears  that  this  universal 
grace  which  "  lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world,"  is  irresistible  as  the  gift  of  creation,  or  the  original 
image  of  God.  But  Mr.  Wesley  affirms  "that  salvation  by 
irresistible  grace  makes  man  a  mere  machine,  and  conse- 
quently not  rewardable  or  punishable."  f  How  then  can  it 
be  true,  according  to  Dr.  Clarke,  "  that  as  this  (universal) 
grace  is  offered,  so  it  may  be  received" — and  "all  may  im- 
prove and  retain  the  grace  they  receive,"  J  i.  e.  this  irresist- 
ible grace?  In  what  proper  sense  can  "a  mere  machine" 
receive  and  improve  grace  ?  Will  it  be  replied,  that  this 
"  irresistible  grace"  is  not  "  salvation,"  but  only  the  begin- 
ning of  salvation  ?  Still  this  does  not  mend  the  matter;  for 
how  can  "  a  mere  machine"  receive  and  improve  even  these 
beginnings  of  salvation?  And  especially  how  can  this 
"  working  of  a  mere  machine"  enable  it  to  get  more  grace  as 
the  reward  of  improving  its  irresistible  grace  ?  And  how 
can  the  machine,  when  thus  worked  by  irresistible  grace,  be- 
come punishable  for  not  improving  it  ?  These,  we  confess, 
are  mysteries  in  Arminian  theology  which  we  have  never 
seen  cleared  up. 

2.  But  there  is  a  further  very  serious  difficulty  attending 
this  Arminian  doctrine  of  universal,  irresistible  grace.  It  is 
to  this  grace  that  all  the  sins  and  sufferings  of  mankind  are 
attributable.  Without  this  "irresistible  grace,"  they  assure 
us,  the  posterity  of  Adam  could  have  neither  sinned,  nor 
suffered  at  all !  We  prove  it  thus  : 
*  Genuine  Creed,  Art  3        f  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  50.       |  Com.  on  Rom.  5  :  15. 

13* 


150    *  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  VIII. 

(1.)  Says  Dr.  Clarke — "This  heavenly  light  shines  into 
the  soul  of  every  man,"  *  *  *  and  through  this  light 
*  *  *  what  is  termed  conscience  among  men  is  produced. 
No  man  could  discern  good  from  evil,  were  it  not  for  this 
light  thus  supernaturally  and  graciously  restored.*  And  in 
his  Discourses  before  quoted  (p.  77),  Dr.  C.  says — "  Had  man 
been  left  just  as  he  was  when  he  fell,  he  in  all  probability 
had  been  utterly  insalvable,  as  he  appears  to  have  lost  all  his 
spiritual  light  *  *  *  even  his  moral  feeling."  "  So 
would  have  been  all  his  posterity,  had  not  some  gracious 
principle  (irresistible  grace)  been  supernaturally  restored,  to 
give  them  some  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  virtue  and  vice, 
and  thus  bring  them  into  a  salvable  state."  But  if  these  po- 
sitions be  correct,  then  the  condition  of  mankind  by  the  fall, 
would  have  evidently  been  such  that  they  could  neither  sin 
nor  be  punished,  since  they  had  blotted  out  conscience,  moral 
feeling  and  all  sense  of  right  and  wrong — in  other  words,  had 
ceased  to  be  free,  intelligent  moral  agents,  and  were  no  bet- 
ter than  mere  machines.  Thus  all  their  sins  are  of  free,  ir- 
resistible grace  ! 

(2.)  Fletcher  teaches  the  same  doctrine  of  "gracious  free 
agency. "f  And  the  General  Conference  in  their  "  Doctrinal 
Tracts"J  say — "  Man  hath  his  freedom  of  will,  not  naturally, 
but  by  grace,"  i.  e.  by  "irresistible  grace."  But  mankind 
without  "  freedom  of  will,"  could  of  course  commit  no  sin,  nor 
justly  suffer  any  punishment.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  to 
"irresistible  grace,"  Arminian  grace,  all  the  crimes,  pollu- 
tions, sufferings  and  sorrows  of  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  to 
be  ascribed!  Such  is  the  wonderful  "light  which  lighten- 
eth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  Besides,  if  "  ir- 
resistible grace"  makes  man  "  a  mere  machine,"  how  could  it 
possibly  restore  "freedom  of  will" — i.  e.  to  a  "mere  ma- 
chine !" 

*  Com.  on  John  1:9.  f  Genuine  Creed,  Art.  4. 

%  Tract  on  Election  and  Reprobation,  p.  154. 


Let.  VIII.  ELECTION  —  REPROBATION.  151 

(3.)  But  worse  than  all  —  this  doctrine  of  "irresistible 
grace"  is  in  fact  irresistible  reprobation  to  eternal  death.  Let 
us  look  closely  at  this  matter. — 

This  grace,  according  to  Arininians,  is  bestowed  irresistibly 
upon  all  men  of  every  clime,  age  and  nation,  and  had  been 
given  to  those  who  were  in  hell  when  Christ  died.  Without 
it,  they  say,  they  could  not  have  sinned,  nor  could  they  have 
suffered.  What  object,  therefore,  had  the  God  of  mercy  in 
view  in  forcing  this  "  irresistible  grace"  upon  those  to  whom 
he  infallibly  foresaw  it  would  result  in  their  own  destruction  ? 
Fletcher  answers — "  It  reproves  their  sins,  it  galls  their  con- 
sciences, it  renders  them  inexcusable,  *  *  *  it  clears 
God's  justice,  it  shows  that  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  docs 
no  wrong,  and  it  begins  in  this  world  the  just  punishment 
which  righteous  vengeance  will  complete  in  the  next."  These, 
he  says,  are  "  the  less  desirable  effects"  of  "  gracious  free 
agency,"  or  "irresistible  grace."  Here  again  is  the  old  dif- 
ficulty— for  without  this  grace,  men  would  have  been  excus- 
able and  God  could  not  have  justly  punished  them  !  And  as 
all  except  Universalists,  admit  that  thousands  perish  under 
this  system  of  Arminian  grace,  and  as  they  were  infallibly 
known  to  the  author  of  this  grace  before  he  forced  it  irre- 
sistibly upon  them,  does  not  this  amount  to  the  doctrine 
of  unconditional  reprobation  in  its  worst  sense,  viz.  it  forci- 
bly deprives  men  of  all  valid  excuse  for  their  conduct,  makes 
it  justin  God  to  punish  them,  and  begins  their  punishment 
even  in  this  world,  preparatory  to  "  the  righteous  vengeance" 
of  the  next:  and  these  are  "desirable  effects"  of  grace! 
Would  it  not  have  been  much  more  "desirable"  to  withhold 
this  "  irresistible  grace"  from  all  who  were  known  as  infal- 
libly certain  to  misimprove  it  and  perish  by  means  of  it  ? 
How  cruel  to  force  this  grace  upon  them  —  "which  they 
never  at  any  period  consented  to  and  which  they  never  could 
avoid."  "  Does  not  God  know  that  these  poor  wretches 
cannot  help"  this  "  irresistible  grace  ?"     "  How  came  these 


152  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

miserable  creatures  in  their  condition  of  sin  and  wretchedness? 
They  were  put  there  by  the  decree  of  irresistible  grace."* 

In  conclusion  of  this  whole  subject,  it  is  obvious  that  irre- 
sistible "unconditional  reprobation"  is  an  Arminian  doctrine.. 
Nor  is  it  less  plain,  that  "  unconditional  reprobation"  is  no 
part  of  Presbyterianism.  Such  writers  as  Fletcher,  Wesley, 
Fisk,  &c.  wbo  make  this  charge,  are  themselves  the  guilty 
persons.  We  hold  that  the  finally  lost  are  "  doomed  for 
their  sins,"  which  they  freely  commit.  If  the  Arminian 
reply — Were  not  their  -sins  decreed  ?  We  answer — Yes ;  they 
were  decreed  permissively ,  not  otherwise.  Calvinists  teach 
no  "  irresistible  grace"  or  any  other  Divine  influence  to  make 
men  guilty,  without  excuse,  and  exposed  to  the  vengeance 
of  eternal  fire  !  This  is  Arminianism — pure  and  unmixed. 
Thus  they  trace  the  sins  and  sufferings  of  guiltless  men  di- 
rectly to  the  will  of  the  Creator. 


LETTER    IX. 

THE  ATONEMENT,  ITS  NATURE  AND  EXTENT. 

Rev.  Sir — Upon  the  importance  of  scriptural  views  of  the 
great  fundamental  doctrine  of  Atonement,  Arminians  and 
Calvinists  are  agreed.  Error  here  is  like  disease  of  the  heart 
— its  morbid  influence  will  be  felt  in  every  extremity  of  the 
system.     Let  us  look  at  this  subject  in  its  Arminian  aspects. 

III.     The  Difficulties  of  Arminian  Methodism  in 

CONNECTION    WITH    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ATONEMENT. 

In  the  20th  Article  of  your  system,  we  read  as  follows : 
"  The  offering  of  Christ  is  that  perfect  redemption,  propitia- 

*  Objections,  &c.  pp.  124,  97,  83,  136,  166.  In  these  extracts  we  have 
substituted  "  irresistible  grace"  for  "  corruption,"  "  depravity,"  <fec.  of  the 
original. 


Let.  IX.      NATURE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.         153 

tion,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both 
original  and  actual."  Before  stating  our  objections  to  this 
article,  it  may  be  proper  to  mention  some  points  in  which  we 
agree.  So  far  as  regards  the  essential  nature  of  the  work  of 
redemption,  we  judge  your  article  expresses  the  truth,  viz. 
"that  Christ,"  as  affirmed  by  Watson,  "  died  for  us  as  a  sub- 
stitute, bore  the  punishment  due  to  our  offenses;"  and  after 
quoting  the  texts,  "  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions, 
he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed  " — 
Watson  adds  :  "  these  passages  prove  a  substitution,  a  suffer- 
ing in  our  stead" — "our  iniquities,  (i.  e.  their  punishment) 
are  made  to  meet  on  him,  they  are  laid  upon  him,  the  _pere«7ty 
is  exacted  from  him."  "  The  death  of  Christ,"  he  adds,  "  is 
explicitly  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  penal,  which 
it  could  not  be  in  any  other  way  than  by  his  taking  our  place 
and  suffering  in  our  stead."  To  sustain  these  views,  he  quotes 
largely  such  passages  as  these  :  "  Christ  offered  one  sacrifice 
for  sins — gave  himself  for  our  sins  " — "  the  Son  of  man  came 
to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  " — "Christ  hath  redeemed 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us,"  &c* 

To  this  testimony,  Rev.  N.  L.  Bangs  adds :  "  The  law  of 
God  being  completely  satisfied  by  the  obedience  of  Christ  unto 
death,  it  can  have  no  just  demands  upon  those  for  whom  satis- 
faction was  made.  And  if  the  law  has  no  demand,  there  can 
be  no  condemnation."f  Now  if  these  statements  be  true,  as 
we  believe  them  to  be,  it  seems  to  the  Calvinist  a  most  natural 
and  necessary  inference  that  all  this  could  not  have  been  done 
"  for  all  the  sins  of  those  who  are  finally  lost" — therefore  not 
"for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  But  of  this  more 
hereafter. 

We  also  agree  with  Arminians,  that  the  value  of  our  Lord's 
satisfaction,  in  itself  considered,  is  infinite,  that  it  possesses 
an  intrinsic  sufficiency  of  meritorious  obedience  and  sufferings, 
*  Theol.  Inst,  part  2,  chap.  20.  f  Reformer  Reformed,  p.  ISO. 


154  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

to  save  the  whole  of  Adam's  race.  This  follows  from  the 
nature  of  his  work,  the  infinite  dignity  of  his  person,  and  from 
the  effect  of  the  representative  principle  on  which  he  acted. 
Thus,  as  Dr.  Miller  has  said — Christ's  obedience  and  sufferings 
were  such  "  that  nothing  more  would  have  been  necessary  if  all 
mankind  had  been  saved  —  there  would  have  been  no  scanti- 
ness in  the  provision  of- mercy  —  but  an  ample  foundation  is 
laid  for  a  sincere  offer  of  salvation  to  all  who  hear  the  gospel." 
Of  course  Calvinists  regard  it  as  a  blessed  privilege  as  well  as 
a  duty,  to  offer  salvation  through  the  blood  of  atonement  to 
all  men  of  every  class  and  generation.  "  Whosoever  will,  let 
him  come,  and  take  of  the  waters  of  life  freely."  Why  then 
do  we  object  to  the  Article  as  already  quoted  ? 

First,  because  it  is  irreconcilably  at  variance  with  other 
features  of  the  Arminian  system.  Both  parties  agree  that  in 
the  Atonement  man  is  contemplated  as  fallen.  But  it  has 
been  abundantly  shown  in  previous  Letters,  especially  when 
we  were  considering  the  subject  of  "  Original  Sin,"  that  man 
in  his  fallen  state  "  had  lost,"  if  Arminians  speak  the  truth, 
"  his  freedom  of  will,"  and  was  no  longer  a  free  agent.  Of 
course  he  was  incapable  of  sinning;  and  his  actions  were  no 
longer  punishable.  Adam,  indeed,  sinned  freely,  in  eating  the 
forbidden  fruit,  and  for  him  an  atonement  was  necessary. 
But  for  all  his  posterity,  the  first  and  principal  effect  of  the 
atonement  was  to  render  them  "  inexcusable"  and  expose 
them  to  sin  and  misery  here,  and  eternal  vengeance  hereafter  ! 
But  can  these  be  considered  as  the  distinguished  fruits  of 
infinite  mercy  and  grace  ?  Is  this  the  character,  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  of  God's  "  unspeakable  gift  ?"  And  how  can 
our  blessed  Lord  be  said  to  have  made  "  a  perfect  satisfaction 
for  all  the  sins  "  of  those,  who  but  for  his  satisfaction,  would 
have  had  no  sins?  And  then  as  to  those  who  die  in  infancy, 
"  they  were  born  corrupt  and  so  cannot  be  guilty  for  this." 
"  Were  they  to  blame  for  an  existence  and  nature  which  were 
forced  upon  them — which  never  at  any  period  they  consented 


Let.  IX.  NATURE   OF   TOE   ATONEMENT.  155 

to,  and  which  they  never  could  avoid."  *  These  infants  had 
never  committed  auy  actual  sin,  and  were  not  to  blame  for 
their  corrupt  nature  !  It  follows  that  they  had  no  need  of  any 
"satisfaction  for  sin,"  for  they  were  not  sinners!  How  then 
could  Christ  have  made  a  "  perfect  satisfaction "  to  Divino 
justice  for  the  sins  of  "  the  whole  world  ?"  Especially  how 
can  he  be  said  to  have  bought  salvation  for  those  who  die 
infants,  since  they  needed  no  salvation  ? 

2.  We  object  to  the  Article  that  it  teaches  universal  sal- 
vation. If  all  of  every  description  of  character  have  a  "perfect 
propitiation  and  satisfaction "  completed  for  them,  how  can 
any  be  lost?  Wesley  answers — "  Because  they  believe  not 
on  the  Son  of  God."  But  is  not  this  unbelief  a  sin,  yea,  the 
worst  of  sins  ?  Then  the  Article  declares  that  a  perfect  satis- 
faction has  been  made  for  it,  as  well  as  for  all  other  sins.  How 
then  can  it  be  a  cause  of  perdition  ?  If  it  be  just  to  punish 
this  sin  with  everlasting  torments,  after  a  "perfect  propitiation 
and  satisfaction  "  have  been  made  for  it,  it  will  be  equally  just 
and  right  to  punish  all  sin  for  which  Christ  died.  Both  law 
and  justice,  then,  will  take  the  redeemed  sinner  by  the  throat 
at  the  day  of  judgment,  and  each  urge  its  demand,  "  pay  me 
what  thou  owest,"  as  inexorably  as  though  no  Saviour  had 
ever  suffered  and  died  for  his  salvation.  Who  then  can  be 
saved  ? 

Again :  Both  parties  teach  that  unbelief  is  a  great  sin — 
but  the  Article  declares  that  all  sin  is  atoned  for  by  "a  perfect 
satisfaction,"  and  we  are  assured  that  "  the  law  is  perfectly 
satisfied  and  can  have  no  just  demand  upon  those  for  whom 
satisfaction  was  made."  Such  are  the  express  words  employed 
by  Dr.  Bangs.  How  then  can  the  law  condemn,  when  its 
penalty  is  perfectly  paid?  How  can  justice  hold  the  crimiual 
bound,  after  he  has  been  perfectly  redeemed  ?  How  can  the 
Judge  pronounce  sentence  when  he  has  been  perfectly  satis- 
fied ?  Most  manifestly,  therefore,  this  article,  when  inter- 
*  Objections,  pp.  166,  125. 


156  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

preted  on  Methodist  principles,  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the 
salvation  of  all,  without  exception. 

To  evade  these  logical  conclusions,  the  Arniinian  abandons 
the  sound  doctrine  of  his  20th  Article.  He  attempts  to 
explain  away  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  terms  as  follows : 
"  that  by  the  death  of  Christ,  the  sins  of  every  man  are  ren- 
dered remissible,  and  that  salvation  is  consequently  attainable 
by  every  man."*  Thus  the  benefits  of  the  "  perfect  satisfac- 
tion" to  Divine  justice,  by  which  all  legal  demands  are  can- 
celed, are  nevertheless  contingent,  i.  e.  "  are  poised  on  the 
possibility  of  believing  or  not  believing,  leaving  it  to  the  will 
of  intelligent  beings  to  turn  the  scale. "f  But  if  this  be  the 
true  doctrine,  then  the  Scriptures  must  teach  a  mere  condi- 
tional atonement,  and  the  sinner  stands  justly  exposed  to  the 
whole  penalty  —  though  Watson  and  Bangs  say,  "  Christ  bore 
the  punishment,  met  the  just  demands  due  to  our  offenses  !" 
And  if  the  result  had  been  that  all  mankind  had  inclined  the 
scale  of  their  will  the  wrong  way,  as  many  do,  the  "  perfect 
satisfaction,"  the  bearing  of  the  punishment  by  our  Lord,  must 
have  been  utterly  in  vain.  But  is  this  consistent  with  the 
promise  made  by  the  Father  to  the  Son  — "  thy  people  shall 
be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power."  Ps.  110.  So  when  the 
inspired  writers  tell  us — "  The  king's  heart  is  in  the  hand  of 
the  Lord  as  the  rivers  of  water ;  he  turneth  it  whithersoever 
he  will  " — "  It  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  own  good  pleasure  " — these  and  scores  of  similar 
passages  are  subject  to  a  condition — provided  the  soul  will  con- 
sent to  poise  the  scale  the  right  way  ! 

The  Arniinian  scheme  is  therefore  totally  at  "  variance 
with  the  very  nature  of  the  Saviour's  work.  It  is  an  atone- 
ment ;  that  is,  a  reconciliation ;  and  to  talk  of  his  making 
an  atonement  for  such  as  are  never  reconciled,  is  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms ;  it  is  to  say  he  makes  atonement  (at-one- 
mcnt,  as  the  word  is ;  makes  God  and  man  at  one),  and  yet 
*  Watson's  Inst.  chap.  25.  f  Clarke's  Com.  on  Acts  2. 


Let.  IX.      NATURE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.         157 

makes  no  atonement  in  the  case  of  the  same  individuals.  He 
is  said  to  give  satisfaction  for  sin  ;  but  how  can  he  have 
given  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  those  on  whom  the  law  is  to 
take  satisfaction  eternally  ?  He  is  said  to  appease  Divine 
justice;  but  can  the  justice  of  God  be  appeased  in  the  case 
of  those  against  whom  its  flaming  sword  shall  awake  for  ever  ? 
— to  expiate  our  offenses ;  but  how  can  those  sins  for  which 
the  guilty  perpetrators  are  to  suffer  everlastingly,  have  been 
expiated  ? — to  redeem  from  the  curse  of  the  law ;  but  how 
can  those  who  are  to  be  kept  in  eternal  thraldom,  have  re- 
demption through  his  blood  ? — to  propitiate  the  wrath  of 
God ;  but  how  can  those  be  interested  in  his  propitiation 
who  are  the  objects  of  Jehovah's  unceasing  displeasure  ?  It 
supposes  him  to  be  the  Saviour  of  those  who  are  never  saved, 
the  Redeemer  of  those  who  are  never  redeemed,  the  Deliverer 
of  thousands  who  are  never  delivered,  but  remain  under  eter- 
nal condemnation."  *  To  say  that,  although  made  for  all, 
it  does  not  save  some,  because  they  do  not  believe,  is  to  over- 
look the  fact  that  thousands  have  never  heard  the  gospel ; 
and  (ihow  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not 
heard  ?" — and  "  how  shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they 
have  not  believed  ?" — and  how  shall  they  be  saved,  if  "  they 
call  not  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  ?"  Horn.  10  :  13,  14.  The 
argument  is  from  the  pen  of  inspiration.  "  Let  God  be  true." 
3.  We  object  to  this  doctrine,  because  it  cannot  be  sup- 
ported by  its  ablest  advocates,  without  arraying  the  designs 
and  purposes  of  God  against  each  other.  The  Arminian 
believes  that  the  blood  of  the  Sacrifice  was  shed  with  the 
design  on  the  part  of  God,  to  save  all  mankind.  But  Watson 
affirms  expressly,  that  "  what  the  creature  will  do  is  known 
beforehand  with  a  perfect  prescience;"  "and  what  God  has 
determined  to  do  in  consequence,  is  known  and  purposed 
from  eternity  in  view  of  the  actual  circumstances.  "  Well,  if 
Christ  perfectly  and  infallibly  knew  those  who  would  continue 
*  Symington  on  Atonement,  p.  192. 

14 


158  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

in  sin  and  perish,  and  had  "purposed  from  eternity"  to  destroy 
them,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  he  died  with  a  design  or 
purpose  to  save  them  ?  In  other  words,  that  he  died  with  a 
purpose  to  save  the  very  persons  whom  he  had  before  pur- 
posed to  destroy!!  And  yet  Watson  strongly  objects  to  "the 
Calvinistic  opinion,"  because  it  implies  that  God  "  never 
intended"  to  save  a  sinner  whom  "from  eternity"  he  had 
"purposed"  or  intended  to  destroy  ! ! 

So  also,  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson,  after  quoting  Dr. 
Rice,  say  :  "  This  quotation  *  *  *  teaches  that  Christ 
did  not  die  with  a  design  to  save  all  men."  *  Of  course, 
they  hold  that  our  blessed  Lord  "  did  die  with  a  design 
to  save  all  mankind."  Yet  Arminians  seriously  tell  us, 
"  Grod  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  (of  course,  before 
men  were  born,)  did  foreknow  *  *  *  all  not  believing. 
And,  according  to  this,  his  foreknowledge,  *  *  *  refused 
or  reprobated  all  disobedient  unbelievers,  as  such,  to  damna- 
tion." "j"  In  other  words,  the  design  or  purpose  to  "  refuse 
or  reprobate  to  damnation"  was  formed  from  eternity;  and 
the  design  or  purpose  to  save  those  same  persons  was  in- 
cluded in  Christ's  death !  Thus  he  died  with  a  purpose  to 
save  the  identical  persons  he  had  from  eternity  p u rposed  to 
destroy  ! 

The  question  of  the  Extent  of  the  Atonement  is  not  fairly 
stated  by  Watson  :  "  Whether  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  did  so 
die  for  all  men,  as  to  make  salvation  attainable  by  all !"  (vol. 
ii.  p.  285.)  We  maintain  the  infinite  intrinsic  value  of 
Christ's  finished  work ;  and  if  this  writer  mean  that  with 
the  light,  teaching  and  special  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
salvation  is  attainable  by  all  at  some  period  during  their 
natural  life  (not  attainable  when  Christ  died,  and  thousands 
were  already  in  the  prison  of  despair),  we  have  no  contro- 
versy with  him;  but  if  he  mean,  attainable  without  the  spe- 
cial aid  of  the  Spirit,  this  is  true  of  no  one,  unless  it  be  true 
*  Objections,  p.  201.  f  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  140. 


Let.  L\.      EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.         159 

that  saints  Lcgrt  themselves  unto  a  lively  hope,  instead  of  being 
"  begotten  of  God."  The  true  hinge  of  the  controversy  is 
the  design  of  God  in  sending  his  Son  into  the  world,  and  the 
intuition  of  Christ  in  expiring  on  the  cross.*  If  the  design 
and  intention  were  to  save  all,  while  many  arc  not  saved,  the 
plan  of  the  great  God  has  been  entirely  frustrated,  and  he 
has  been  disconcerted  and  disappointed.  Besides,  if  this  has 
occurred  in  this  life,  under  the  mediatorial  reign  of  the  Son 
of  God,  what  certainty  can  there  be  that  it  will  not  occur  in 
the  future  world  ?  God  indeed  designs  that  saints  shall  be 
for  ever  holy  and  happy;  and  on  the  strength  of  his  intention 
has  promised  them  an  eternal  inheritance.  But  if  his  plan 
has  once  met  with  defeat  and  disappointment,  what  assurance 
can  we  have  that  it  will  not  be  so  again  ?  It  may  be  replied, 
that  God's  infallible  foreknowledge  proves  it  certain  that  his 
promise  will  not  fail.  But,  on  the  Arminian  scheme,  if  the 
designs  aud  plans  of  Deity  are  defeated  and  fail,  why  may  not 
also  his  foreknowledge  ?  Besides,  God's  infallible  foreknow- 
ledge demonstrates  the  absurdity  of  the  idea,  that  his  designs 
ever  do  fail.  What  can  be  more  derogatory  to  the  character 
of  "  the  only  wise  God,"  than  to  suppose  him  to  form  designs 
and  plans,  and  employ  means  for  their  execution,  while  he  is 
infallibly  certain  that  they  will  be  utterly  frustrated  and  de- 
feated !  For  example,  he  designs  to  save  a  sinner,  whom  he 
infallibly  knows  will  die  in  sin,  and  whom  he  designs,  in  con- 
sequence of  his  sin,  to  punish  for  ever !  Still  he  designs  to 
gave  him,  and  employs  large  and  expensive  means  to  secure 
the  very  result  which  he  designs  shall  never  be  secured.  Dr. 
Clarke's  is  the  best  remedy  here  :  viz.  to  suppose  that  God 
does  not  choose  to  know  certain  events,  when  such  knowledge 
is  rather  inconvenient  to  a  favorite  theory  ! 

•4.   We  object  to  the  Arminian  doctrine,  because  in  repre- 

*  "  Xon  qiueritur,"  says  Turrotine,  "  de  pretio  et  sufficienda  mortis 
Christi.  Sed  agitur  de  destinatione  Dei  mittentis  filium  in  munduin,  ot  do 
intentionc  Christi  morieutis." — Loc.  Dec.  Quart.  Qucestio  14. 


160  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

senting  the  design  of  Christ's  death  to  be  to  save  alJ^  it  con- 
tradicts many  express  passages  of  Scripture.  There  we  dis- 
cover the  design  of  the  Atonement  revealed  in  such  terms  as 
the  following  :  "  Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave  himself 
for  IT,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it — that  he  might 
present  to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or 
wrinkle,  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish.'7 
Eph.  5:25,  26.  Again  it  is,  "That  he  might  redeem  us 
from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people, 
zealous  of  good  works."  Titus  2 :  14.  Again,  "  That  we 
might  live  through  him."  1  John  4 : 9.  Again,  "  He 
suffered  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to 
God."  1  Pet.  3  :  18.  Again,  "  He  was  made  sin  for  us, 
that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him." 
2  Cor.  5  :  21.  Again,  "  He  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body, 
that  we  being  dead  to  sin,  should  live  unto  righteousness." 
1  Pet.  2 :  24.  And  even  when  Cod  is  said  to  have  "  so 
loved  the  world,"  it  is,  that  "  whosoever  believeth  on 
him,  should  not  perish."  In  all  these  passages,  with  many 
more  that  might  be  adduced,  there  is  connected  with  the 
atonement  a  special  design  of  mercy,  which  can  in  no  way  be 
supposed  to  pertain  to  those  who  shall  finally  perish.  For 
example,  did  the  Saviour  design  "to  sanctify  and  cleanse" — 
"to  present  without  spot  or  wrinkle,"  "holy  and  without 
blemish" — "  to  redeem  from  all  iniquity,  that  they  might 
live" — "  to  bring  to  God" — and  "  make  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him" — did  he  design  these  infinite  favors  for  those, 
who  he  "  knew  beforehand  with  a  perfect  prescience,"  would 
live  and  die  in  sin,  and  whom  he  had  "purposed  from  eter- 
nity in  view  of  the  actual  circumstances,"  to  destroy,  as 
Watson  himself  is  compelled  to  admit?  Surely  no  unpreju- 
diced person  can  suppose  that  the  design  of  the  Redeemer's 
death  was  to  save  these  unhappy  ones,  equally  with  those 
who  are  purified  from  sin,  and  crowned  with  glory,  honor  and 
immortality. 


Let.  IX.      EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.        161 

The  limitation  is  even  more  strikingly  brought  into  view  in 
the  following  passages  :  "  For  the  transgression  of  my  peo- 
ple was  he  stricken."  "By  his  knowledge  shall  my  right- 
eous servant  justify  many  ;  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities." 
Is.  53  :  8,  11.  "I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep." 
John  10  :  15.  "  I  pray  for  them ;  I  pray  not  for  the  world, 
but  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me."  John  17:9. 
Can  any  reasonable  person  imagine  that  these  texts  are  con- 
sistent with  the  supposition  that  Christ  "prayed,"  "was 
stricken,"  "  bore  the  iniquities,"  and  "  laid  down  his  life," 
equally  for  all  mankind  ?  On  the  principles  of  the  Armin- 
ian,  Christ's  lave  in  giving  himself  for  his  people,  his  church, 
which  is  compared  to  the  peculiar  special  affection  of  the  hus- 
band for  his  spouse,  means  after  all,  nothing  more  than  the 
universal  good  will  or  compassion  which  he  entertained 
equally  for  all  others.  Can  this  be  true  ?  He  "  shall  justify 
many."  Why?  Because  "he  shall  bear  their  iniquities." 
But  if  he  bore  the  iniquities  of  all,  he  will  justify  all.  He 
is  the  good  Shepherd.  What  is  the  proof?  He  lays  "down 
his  life  for  the  sheep."  But  if  he  laid  down  his  life  equally 
for  those  who  never  were,  nor  ever  will  be  his  sheep,  what 
becomes  of  the  proof  of  his  peculiar  care  and  kindness  as  the 
good  Shepherd  ?  Or  will  it  be  said,  his  sheep  mean  all 
mankind  ?  The  Shepherd  will  himself  give  a  different  decis- 
ion "  at  that  day."  "  Then  shall  the  king  say  to  them  on 
his  right  hand,  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the 
kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 
Matt.  25  :  34. 

5.  We  object  further,  that  Christ  in  his  character  of  In 
tercessor,  clearly  limits  the  design  of  his  death.  Thus,  John 
17 : 9,  "I  pray  for  them :  I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for 
them  which  thou  hast  given  me."  For  what  purpose  did  he 
pray  ?  "  That  he  (Christ)  should  give  eternal  life  to  AS 
many  as  thou  hast  given  him."  John  17:2.  They  were 
not  of  the  world.  But  were  there  not  others  for  whom  he 
II* 


162  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

prayed  ?  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  /ilso 
which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word."  John 
17:20.  And  what  is  the  burden  of  his  prayer?  "That 
they  also  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  be  with  me  where  I  am." 
The  Arminian  believes  that  Christ  died  for  all,  though  he 
prays  or  intercedes  only  for  some.  He  gives  his  life  for 
them,  but  will  not  give  his  prayers!  Or  if,  in  express  con- 
tradiction of  the  Saviour,  he  asserts  that  he  prays  for  the 
world,  or  all  mankind,  then  he  must  believe  that  his  prayer 
does  not  prevail,  in  many  instances,  that  they  "may  be  with 
him  where  he  is" — though  he  himself  has  said,  "I  know  that 
thou  hearest  me  always." 

Another  part  of  the  all-prevalent  intercession  of  Christ  is, 
to  secure  the  gift  of  the  Comforter,  that  he  may  "  abide  with 
his  people  forever."  John  14 :  16.  To  his  success  in  pro- 
curing this  best  of  all  gifts,  the  Apostle  alludes  (Gal.  4:4,  6), 
"God  sent  forth  his  Son  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the 
law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons."  "  And 
because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his 
Son  into  your  hearts."  The  Arminian  doctrine  requires  us 
to  believe  that  Christ  hath  redeemed  thousands,  with  whom 
the  Comforter  does  not  abide;  who  disappoint  and  frustrate 
his  design  that  they  should  receive  the  adoption  of  sons.  He 
is  unable  to  conquer  their  reluctance,  and  make  them  "  will- 
ing in  the  day  of  his  power." 

6.  It  is  a  very  serious  objection  to  the  Arminian  scheme, 
that  it  represents  the  plans  and  merciful  efforts  of  the  persons 
of  the  adorable  Godhead  as  crossing  each  other;  and  thou- 
sands are  redeemed  by  Christ  who  are  never  born  of  the 
Spirit,  but  continue  under  the  bondage  of  corruption,  and  lie 
down  in  everlasting  sorrow.  But  if  this  be  possible,  what 
reason  can  be  given  why  the  death  of  Christ  might  not  have 
been  utterly  and  forever  unavailing,  with  respect  to  the  whole 
human  race  ?  Besides,  so  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  all 
are  redeemed,  that  it  is  the  song  of  the  ransomed  in  heaven — 


Let.  IX.      EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.         103 

"  Thou  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  OUT  OF  every  kindred,  and 
tongue,  and  people,  aud  nation."  Rev.  5:9.  If  it  be  in- 
quired, why  is  the  atonement  made  effectual  for  only  a  part 
of  the  race  of  mankind  ? — we  inquire  in  turn,  why  was  it 
provided  for  any  ?  why  provided  for  man,  and  not  for  the  an- 
gels who  kept  not  their  first  estate  ?  Why  is  the  way  of  one 
man  hedged  up  with  a  thousand  means  and  influences  to  turn 
his  feet  into  the  path  of  peace,  while  another  is  beset  with 
almost  every  form  of  allurement  to  vice  and  ruin  ?  "  Why 
is  it,"  to  employ  the  language  of  Watson,  "that  men  are 
sometimes  irresistibly  awakened  to  a  sense  of  their  guilt 
and  danger  by  the  Spirit  of  God" — "and  sometimes  indepen- 
dent of  any  external  means  at  all" — (vol.  ii.  p.  447) — while 
others,  in  the  use  of  all  the  ordinary  means,  remain  insensi- 
ble to  the  last  ?  Why  did  the  Saviour  give  thanks  that  these 
things  were  hid  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  from  the  self- 
righteous,  and  the  formalist,  while  publicans  and  harlots  go 
into  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  glory  ?  "  Even  so,  Father, 
for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight." 

7.  The  difficulties  multiply  continually  in  the  way  of  the 
Arminian  Article  before  quoted,  as  we  examine  the  inspired 
records.  Christ's  "people"  are  called  "his  church  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  Acts  20  :  28.  But  if 
Arminianisin  be  true,  he  equally  purchased  all  mankind ! 
lie  was  their  "surety"  to  obtain  their  eternal  salvation — they 
are  his  "peculiar  people,"  his  spiritual  seed  (Psalm  22:30), 
whom  the  Father  loved  and  "gave  him,  out  of  the  world," — 
whom  he  loved  and  gave  himself  for  (Eph.  5 :  25),  his  hody} 
his  sheep,  his  elect.     Can  this  be  said  of  all  mankind  ? 

The  "one  offering"  of  the  cross  is  never  said  to  be  de- 
signed merely  to  put  men  into  a  solvable  state,  by  procuring 
power  and  liberty  for  God  to  offer  lower  terms  of  salvation  to 
mankind — but  as  intended  for  actually  saving  his  people 
"from  their  sins"  :ind  the  consequent  miseries.  His  satis- 
faction to  law  and  justice  is  represented  to  have  been  an  in- 


164  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

finitely  meritorious  price  or  ransom  paid  for  inestimable 
benefits,  pardon,  reconeiliation,  acceptance,  adoption,  sanctifi- 
cation,  victory,  glorification.  Thus  as  Adam's  disobedience 
was  effectual  to  condemn  all  his  natural  seed,  so  Christ's  obe- 
dience unto  death  equally  and  to  like  extent  justifies,  "makes 
righteous,"  all  his  church,  his  spiritual  posterity.  Rom. 
5:12—21.  So  also  salvation  is  styled  u  the  purchased  pos- 
session" (Eph.  1:14),  which  cannot  mean  merely  "asalv- 
able  state." 

8.  If  Christ  died  equally  for  all  men,  as  much  for  the  lost 
as  for  the  saved,  then  in  a  great  measure  he  has  lost  his  end 
or  object  in  the  great  work  of  Redemption — "  either  through 
want  of  wisdom  he  laid  his  plan  extremely  ill,  or  through 
want  of  power  or  mercy  he  is  unable  to  execute  it.  Thus  he 
must  have  thrown  away  his  infinitely  precious  life  for  mil- 
lions who  are  never  saved — for  millions  who  were  at  that 
very  time  in  hell  and  beyond  the  reach  of  mercy — for  mil- 
lions whom  he  never  informs  of  it  and  never  calls  to  believe 
on  his  name,  any  more  than  if  they  were  devils."*  Such 
are  some  of  the  hopeful  fruits  of  the  dogma,  which  asserts  the 
design  of  the  Redeemer's  death  to  have  been  to  save  all,  as 
much  Cain  and  Judas,  as  John  and  Paul;  as  much  those 
who  were  in  hell,  as  those  who  inherit  heaven.  If  to  have 
the  wisest,  and  best,  and  most  merciful  designs  thwarted, 
and  the  kindest  intentions  and  purposes  disappointed  of  their 
execution  by  wicked  creatures,  can  produce  vexation  and  cha- 
grin, the  blessed  Redeemer,  on  Methodist  principles,  must  be 
infinitely  mortified  and  miserable. 

9.  The  same  train  of  scriptural  reasoning  will  suffice  to  re- 
fute an  Arminian  evasion.  It  has  been  said  that  "although 
a  'perfect  satisfaction'  was  offered  for  all  men,  yet  it  was  not 
accepted  for  their  actual  sins  (in  which  is  included  unbelief), 
until  men  comply  with  the  gospel  conditions."  What  a  de- 
grading view  of  the  glorious  work  of  redemption  is  this  !  The 

*  John  Brown  of  lladdington. 


Let.  IX.  EXTENT   OF   TIIE   ATONEMENT.  165 

blessed  Jesus  eame  into  this  world  of  guilt,  lived  a  life  of 
Borrows,  and  died  a  death  of  infamy,  "  to  finish  the  work"  his 
Father  had  given  him  to  do  for  the  salvation  of  men.  "  It  is 
finished,"  he  cried  upon  the  cross,  and  gave  up  the  ghost. 
The  work  was  completed  ;  a  "perfect  redemption,  propitiation 
and  satisfaction,"  were  made  for  lost  sinners.  But  after  all 
these  sufferings,  and  sorrows,  and  groans,  and  tears,  and 
blood,  it  availeth  nothing;  "it  is  not  accepted."  Why? 
because  men  do  not  repent  and  believe  ! 

But  is  it  not  said  that  the  Lord  Jesus  not  merely  satisfied, 
but  "magnified  the  law  and  made  it  honorable  ;"  that  "God  is 
v<  II  pleased  for  his  righteousness'  sake  ;"  that  "  He  is  exalted 
u  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel  and  remis- 
sion of  sins ;"  and  that  faith  which  is  the  gift  of  God,  is  also  a 
blessed  fruit  produced  by  his  death  and  inwrought  by  his 
Spirit?  Thus,  if  the  Scriptures  speak  the  truth,  both  faith 
and  repentance  are  the  fruits  of  his  sacrifice,  the  gifts  of  his 
Holy  Spirit.  Christ  is  "  the  author  and  finisher  of  our 
faith."  Unbelief  and  impenitence  are  the  thick  clouds  which 
dissolve  in  the  blessed  beams  of  "the  Sun  of  righteousness." 
And  so  far  from  these  preventing  the  acceptance  on  the  part 
of  the  Judge  of  the  offered  atonement,  they  are  a  main  part 
of  the  evil,  the  deadly  malady  which  it  was  designed  to  heal. 
So  he  understood  the  subject  who  said,  "  If,  when  we  were 
enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
much  more  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life. 
He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  freely  gave  him  up  for 
us  all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  freely  give  us  all  things  f" 
So  also,  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  my  sheep,  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand." 
Do  these  passages  teach  an  atonement  offered,  but  not  ac- 
cepted ?  Shall  sinful  man  venture  to  reverse  these  promises 
of  Almighty  God,  and  affirm,  "  Christ  lays  down  his  life  for 
his  sheep"  (or  all  mankind),  and  thousands  of  them  do  perish, 
and  are  plucked  out  of  his  hand  ?     He  that  spared  not  his 


166  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

own  Son,  but  freely  gave  him  up  for  us  all,  will  not  with  him 
freely  give  us  all  things — will  not  grant  us  faith  and  repent- 
ance, the  gifts  of  his  Spirit,  through  the  blood  of  atonement. 
Shall  a  sinner,  redeemed  by  the  omnipotent  arm  of  Jehovah, 
be  a  bond-slave  of  Satan  for  ever  ?  Shall  he  bestow  the  high- 
est blessing  at  his  disposal,  and  deny  a  minor  benefit  ?  Shall 
ho  perform  the  greater,  but  refuse  the  less  ?  All  the  perfec- 
tions of  the  ever  blessed  God  conspire  to  answer,  No  ! 

10.  A  further  difficulty  presses  upon  the  aforesaid  Articlo 
of  Methodist  faith.  It  represents  the  ever  blessed  God  in  a 
light  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  shield  his  character  from 
cruelty  and  injustice.  We  believe  it  can  be  fairly  and  logi- 
cally substantiated,  that  the  doctrine  of  universal  atonement, 
as  taught  by  Methodists,  implies  a  foul  aspersion  upon  the 
character  of  Jehovah.  For,  notwithstanding  her  avowed  be- 
lief of  a  "  perfect  redemption,  propitiation  and  satisfaction, 
for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,"  Methodism  teaches  that 
thousands  of  the  human  family  will  be  driven  away  into  un- 
quenchable fire,  to  satisfy  Divine  justice  for  sins  for  which 
there  is  already  paid  a  perfect  satisfaction  by  the  all-perfect 
Saviour.  In  other  words,  that  a  God  of  infinite  mercy,  after 
his  holy  law  and  his  impartial  justice  have  been  "  perfectly" 
satisfied  for  all  sin,  will  demand  everlasting  sufferings  of  the 
sinner,  as  a  further  satisfaction  ;  which  is,  to  require  a  double 
payment  of  the  debt ;  the  first  made  by  Christ,  full  and  per- 
fect, yet  so  imperfect,  as  to  require  the  sufferings  of  the  sin- 
ner to  all  eternity  to  complete  it — a  satisfaction  (made  perfect 
by  Christ)  which  does  not  satisfy;  and  the  sinner  is  con- 
demned to  suffer  for  ever  to  make  perfection  perfect ;  a  per- 
fect satisfaction,  which  shall  be  perfectly  satisfactory ! 

Airain  :  It  is  not  denied,  that  it  was  infallibly  known  to 
Christ,  when  about  to  "die  the  accursed  death,"  that  many 
would  not  be  saved  by  his  sacrifice ;  but  that  their  guilt  and 
punishment  would  be  greatly  aggravated,  if  his  blood  were 
charged  to  their  account.     What  then  can  be  more  revolting 


Let.  IX.      EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.        167 

to  every  right  feeling,  than  to  suppose  that  the  blessed  Sa- 
viour, in  that  awful  aud  teuder  hour  when  he  poured  out  his 
soul  an  offering  for  sinners,  was  performing  for  thousands  that 
which  he  Infallibly  foreknew  would  be  of  no  real  benefit  to 
them,  but  only  sink  them  down  under  tenfold  vengeance  to 
the  prison  of  despair  ?  If  this  is  what  Methodism  terms  tho 
freeness  of  grace  and  the  fullness  of  Divine  mercy  in  the  uni- 
versal atonement,  truly  her  "  tender  mercies  are  cruel." 
These  are  some  of  the  beauties  of  that  system  which  is  so 
arrogantly  extolled  as  superior  to  all  other  forms  of  religion. 
"  Consistency  is  a  jewel,"  which  Methodism  seems  resolved 
shall  never  glitter  in  her  diadem. 

If  it  were  my  object  to  write  a  labored  treatise  on  doctrinal 
points,  many  additional  arguments  would  be  adduced  to  sus- 
tain the  Calvinistic  view.  But  let  us  look  for  a  few  moments 
at  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  taught  in  the  Scriptures  ?  It 
is  that  Christ  is  "  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  them 
that  believe."  He  is  the  Saviour  of  all — his  sacrifice  secured 
important  benefits  not  only  to  this  world,  but  to  the  universe. 
It  was  an  illustrious  monument  of  the  Divine  justice  and 
hatred  of  sin,  and  the  highest  display  of  infinite  grace  and 
mercy.  The  subjects  of  God's  universal  empire  looked  on 
and  drank  in  lessons  of  everlasting  wisdom.  He  is  the 
Saviour  of  all.  The  exalted  character  of  the  Divine  victim, 
and  the  intensity  of  his  sufferings,  impart  a  value  to  the 
atonement  sufficient  for  a  thousand  worlds.  He  is  the  Sa- 
viour of  all,  but  not  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  is  "  spe- 
ciaUy  the  Saviour  of  them  that  believe."  The  work  of 
obedience,  suffering  and  death,  has  been  well  and  fully  per- 
formed— the  sacrifice  of  "  the  Lamb  of  God"  possesses  a 
suMciency  more  than  commensurate  with  the  ruin  and  curse 
introduced  by  sin.  On  the  ground  of  this  sufficiency  the  gos- 
pel proclaims,  "Ho,  every  one  that  thirsteth — Whosoever 
will,  let  him  come — All  things  are  now  ready."  The  sinner 
hears  this  call  of  mercy,  and  despising  its  invitation,  dies  a 


168  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

suicide.  The  gates  of  mercy  were  open,  and  he  will  have  no 
just  cause  of  complaint,  if,  whilst  turning  his  back  upon  the 
glories  of  heaven,  and  freely  choosing  the  road  to  ruin,  his  will 
was  not  subdued  by  the  Spirit  of  grace,  nor  he  "  compelled 
to  come  in."  No  principle  of  truth  or  justice  will  be  violated 
in  permitting  the  rebel,  in  the  exercise  of  perfect  freedom,  to 
make  such  a  disposition  of  his  time,  talents  and  active  pow- 
ers, as  was  most  agreeable  to  himself;  nor  in  inflicting 
deserved  punishment  for  perversion  and  abuse  of  distin- 
guished mercies.  If  others  are  "  made  willing  in  the  day 
of  Divine  power" — if  "  God  works  in  them  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  good  pleasure" — it  is  an  act  of  infinite  grace  to 
them,  but  of  no  imaginable  injury  to  those  that  perish — they 
remain  precisely  where  they  were,  and  would  have  been,  if 
God  had  performed  no  act  of  power  to  make  others  willing  to 
be  reconciled  and  restored  to  his  favor.  If  this  be  "  par- 
tiality," show  the  injustice  or  the  caprice  implied  in  the 
charge.  If  God  has  "  a  right  to  do  what  he  will  ioith  his 
own,"  there  is  no  injustice.  If  he  may,  for  wise  reasons  in 
his  eternal  mind,  select  from  the  mass  of  guilt  and  wretched' 
ness  the  objects  of  his  infinite  charity,  there  is  no  caprice. 
"Who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God?" 

Let  us  now  consider  some  of  the  most  plausible  objections 
to  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the  Atonement,  derived  from  the 
terms,  "all,"  "every  man,"  "the  whole  world,"  employed 
by  the  sacred  writers  in  connection  with  the  death  of  Christ. 

(1.)  These  terms  are  the  stronghold  of  the  Universalist, 
and  are  therefore  a  suspicious  refuge  for  the  Arminian  !  Not 
only  does  the  Universalist  satisfy  himself  that  such  phrases 
include  "all  men;"  but  all  the  devils,  as  in  Eph.  1  :10; 
Col.  1  :  20.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  perceive  how  the  Arminian, 
on  his  principle  of  interpretation,  will  answer  his  argument 
from  these  and  similar  passages. 

(2.)  These  terms  will  often  bear  no  other  than  a  limited 
sense.     Exod.  9  :  6 — "All  the  cattle  of  Egypt  died."     Same 


Let.  IX.       EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.        169 

verse — "  Of  the  cattle  of  the  children  of  Israel  (which  were 
all  in  Egypt)  died  not  one."  Matt,  o  :  5,  6 — "  Jerusalem, 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  went 
out  to  him  (John)  and  were  baptized."  Did  John  baptize 
every  man,  woman  and  child  in  that  district?  Matt.  10  :  22 
— "  Ye  shall  be  hated  by  all  men  for  my  name's  sake." 
Does  this  include  the  pious,  and  those  who  never  heard  of 
the  Apostles  ?  Luke  2  :  1 — "  There  went  out  a  decree  that 
all  the  world  should  be  taxed."  "  And  all  went  to  be  taxed." 
Can  this  literally  mean  every  individual  of  mankind  ?  Rom. 
1  :  8 — "  Your  faith  is  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  world." 
Surely  not  among  those  who  had  never  heard  of  Christianity. 

Dr.  Clarke,  the  Methodist  commentator,  owing  to  his 
Arminian  notions,  is  compelled,  in  a  remarkable  instance,  to 
adopt  the  limited  interpretation  of  the  term  "world."  In 
expounding  John  17  :  21,  he  says  :  "  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  word  world  is  used  in  several  parts  of  our  Lord's  last 
discourse,  to  signify  the  Jewish  people  only"  Thus,  when 
our  Lord  says,  "I  pray  not  for  the  world,"  he  means,  ac- 
cording to  Clarke,  "  I  am  not  yet  come  to  that  part  of  my 
intercession  !"  I  am  not  now  praying  for  the  Jews  !  And 
he  then  refers  us  to  verse  20th  of  the  same  chapter  :  "  Neither 
pray  I  for  these  alone  (my  twelve  disciples),  but  for  them  also 
which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word."  Here  the 
Saviour  begins  to  pray  for  the  world,  i.  e.  for  "  them  which 
shall  believe  on  me  !"  And  again,  says  Clarke,  "  He  does 
not  pray  for  the  world,  the  rebellious  Jews,  because  the  cup 
of  their  inicpiity  was  full."  Under  the  guidance  of  such  a 
skillful  expositor,  the  terms  world,  ichole  world,  &c.  can 
occasion  no  trouble  to  the  Calvinist. 

When  the  term  world  signifies  persons,  it  sometimes  de- 
notes the  Roman  empire,  as  in  Acts  11:28,  Rom.  1:8,  or  it 
means  the  Gentiles  as  distinguished  from  the  Jews,  or  even 
but  a  part  of  the  Jewish  people,  as  in  John  12  :  19,  or  the 
wicked  men  of  the  world,  as  1  John  4  :  -1-5.  Thus  when 
15 


170  DIFFICULTIES    OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

the  Pharisees  said  of  Christ — "  Behold,  the  world  is  gone 
after  him" — the  term  of  course  included  only  a  small  number 
of  the  Jews  and  a  few  Gentiles  in  the  crowd. 

(3.)  In  explaining  such  phraseology,  it  should  be  kept  in 
mind  that  the  Jews  had  imbibed  a  strong  prejudice  that  they 
were  always  to  continue  the  peculiar  and  highly  favored  peo- 
ple of  G-od,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Gentiles.  Not  so,  say  the 
Apostles.  The  gospel  embraces  in  its  large  provisions  all 
men,  the  whole  world,  without  distinction  of  Jew  or  Gentile, 
bond  or  free. 

(4.)  These  general  terms  often  denote  men  of  all  sorts  and 
ranks  and  conditions,  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor.  Thus 
Paul  made  himself  a  servant  to  all.  1  Cor.  1 :  19.  But  no 
text  can  be  found  which  affirms  that  Christ  died  in  the  law- 
room  of  all  mankind,  with  a  design  to  save  them,  and  as 
their  surety  and  representative.  One  plain,  express,  une- 
quivocal declaration  to  this  effect  would  settle  the  question — 
but  it  is  not  to  be  had. 

(6.)  Calvinists,  as  before  stated,  earnestly  maintain  that 
there  is  a  very  important  sense  in  which  the  Saviour  died  for 
all — that  is,  sufficiently  for  all.  So  that  if  all  had  been 
saved,  there  would  have  been  required  "  no  more  sacrifice  for 
sin."  No  soul  will  perish  because  of  a  deficiency  in  the 
merits  or  intrinsic  worth  of  the  atonement.  That  we  hold  to 
be,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  terms,  infinite — absolute — all- 
sufficient.  By  what  authority,  then,  does  Watson  affirm  that 
"  on  the  Calvinian  theory  the  bar  to  the  salvation  of  the  non- 
elect  lies  in  the  want  of  a  provided,  sacrifice  for  sin?"  Such 
hardihood  of  assertion  ill  becomes  a  master  in  Israel. 

This  view-  of  the  intrinsic  sufficiency  of  the  atonement, 
furnishes  a  satisfactory  answer  to  another  Arminian  cavil, 
viz.  that  "on  the  part  of  the  non-elect,  unbelief  is  no  sin," 
and  that  for  all  men  to  believe  in  Christ  for  salvation,  would 
De  for  many  of  them  to  "  believe  a  lie."*     This  would  have 

*  Objections,  p.  152. 


Let.  IX.       EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.         171 

some  force,  if  we  were  required  to  persuade  men  that  Christ 
died  with  an  equal  intention  to  save  them  all  !  We  command 
ALL,  in  the  name  of  the  Most  High  God,  to  helieve  that  the 
work  of  sacrifice  and  propitiation  is  finished,  and  that  the 
only  obstacle  to  their  salvation  is  in  themselves.  This  is  no 
"lie,"  but  a  great  truth,  and  they  are  righteously  bidden  to 
believe  it.  They  have  all  the  faculties  requisite  for  understand- 
ing, believing,  accepting  and  loving  this  truth — all  that  is 
wanting  is  the  right  dispositions  or  affections.  For  this  want 
they  are  responsible.  These  wrong  dispositions  are  no  better 
excuse  than  if  a  son  should  say  to  a  very  kind  father — "  I 
hate  you  so  intensely  I  cannot  love  you  !" 

But,  retorts  the  Arminian,  "perhaps  Christ  did  not  intend 
to  save  me.  What  use,  then,  in  my  endeavors,  prayers,  &c  ?" 
Let  us  look  closely  at  this  plea.  We  will  take  a  parallel 
case.  God  made  a  promise  to  Noah  for  all  mankind,  that 
"while  the  earth  remaineth,  seed  time  and  harvest  shall 
not  cease."  Gen.  8  :  22.  But  sometimes  he  sends  a  nipping 
frost  in  June,  which  reverses  this  promise  over  a  large  extent 
of  territory.  Suppose  the  husbandman  should  say — "  I  do 
not  know  whether  it  is  the  intention  of  God  to  give  me  a  har- 
vest next  summer — therefore  I  will  neither  plow  nor  sow. 
God  has  made  it  my  duty  to  cultivate  the  soil,  and  denounced 
idleness  as  the  hateful  parent  of  many  crimes — but  as  he  has 
not  revealed  his  intention  in  regard  to  the  next  harvest,  what 
use  in  my  endeavors,  rising  up  early,  and  eating  the  bread  of 
carefulness  t"  This  would  be  a  pure  Arminian  husbandry, 
and  like  sloth,  it  would  soon  bring  its  advocate  to  rags.  A 
preacher  of  this  sort  of  agriculture,  might  argue  very  logi- 
cally— "  Know  you  not  that  if  God  does  not  intend  to  give 
you  a  harvest,  you  will  not  get  it  ?  Why  should  you  labor; 
you  cannot  make  one  blade  of  wheat  grow  ?  Why  do  you 
take  trouble  about  that  which  Omnipotence  alone  can  per- 
form ?     What  folly  you  are  guilty  of !     Plow,  harrow,  sow, 


172  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  IX. 

fence — for  what  ?  Will  not  God  fulfill  his  intention  not  to 
give  you  a  crop,  if  such  it  be  ?"* 

"  But  still  it  may  be  said,  if  it  be  not  the  Divine  intention 
to  give  me  a  crop  next  summer,  why  should  I  believe  his 
promise  ?  Gen.  8  :  22.  Does  he  not  thus  require  me  to  be- 
lieve a  lie?"  This,  we  admit,  would  be  sound  Arminian 
logic.  But  so  long  as  plain,  good  sense  has  the  control,  the 
farmer  will  say — "  God's  promise  is  my  encouragement  to 
industry  and  every  other  duty — his  secret  intention  is  no 
rule  of  conduct  to  any  one."  Thus  Calvinism  and  common 
sense  will  be  found  to  preside  over  all  the  affairs  of  men,  ex- 
cept where  a  false  S3rstem  has  introduced  confusion  among  the 
religious  activities  of  the  soul. 

A  similar  train  of  reasoning  applies  to  the  question  of  hu- 
man life  or  death.  Job  says — "  Man's  days  are  determined, 
the  number  of  his  months  is  with  thee ;  thou  hast  appointed 
his  bounds  that  he  cannot  pass."  But  when  a  man  of  sound 
judgment  is  taken  sick,  he  does  not  say — "  If  God  has  deter' 
mined  that  I  must  now  die,  it  is  of  no  use  to  take  either  food 
or  medicine  I"  Even  the  Arminian  acts  the  Calvinist  under 
such  circumstances,  takes  to  his  bed,  sends  for  the  doctor,  and 
swallows  his  nauseous  compounds  in  the  orthodox  way,  with- 
out waiting  to  settle  the  previous  question  whether  "  God  has 
appointed  his  bounds,"  so  that  he  cannot  pass  "  over  this  crisis 
in  his  history  I"  This  is  common  sense  in  relation  to  the 
soul  as  well  as  the  body. 

The  scriptural  principles  and  reasonings  adduced  in  this 
Letter,  will  suffice  to  solve  every  difficulty  which  Arminian- 
ism  constructs  in  the  way  of  the  truth.  The  same  God  rules 
in  both  the  kingdoms  of  nature  and  of  grace,  and  "  doeth  his 
pleasure  among  the  hosts  of  heaven  and  the  inhabitants  of 
the   earth."     The  more   entirely  and  unresistingly  we    c,an 

*  See  this  sort  of  argument  in  almost  these  words,  Objections,  Ac.  p.  137, 
and  in  many  other  places. 


Let.  X.  '         FALLING  FROM  GRACE.  173 

pray,  "Thy  will  be  done,"  the  more  of  the  spirit  of  true 
iilial  devotion  we  possess.  This  is  the  true,  the  only  method 
of  assuring  ourselves  that  "  our  names  are  written  in  the 
book  of  life  of  the  Lamb,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 
Rev.  17:8;  13:8. 


LETTER   X. 

FALLING    FROM    GRACE. 

Rev.  Sir  —  In  my  last  I  finished  the  discussion  of  the 
Armiuian  views  of  Atonement,  viz.  "a  perfect  redemption, 
propitiation  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins"  of  mankind,  the 
chief,  grand  effect  of  which  is  to  render  "  sin  remissible  and  the 
sinner  salvable."  The  satisfaction  made  by  Christ,  it  was  also 
shown,  might  have  been  barren  of  any  further  fruit,  since  if 
one  sinner  disappoints  the  gracious  designs  of  the  almighty 
Redeemer,  all  might  have  done  likewise,  and  there  would 
have  been  absolutely  no  remedy  !  God  the  Father  did  indeed 
promise  that  "his  work  should  prosper  in  the  Mediator's 
Lands  "  (Isa.  53) ;  but  that  depended  on  a  variety  of  contin- 
gencies, such  as  "  the  good  leave "  of  the  sinner,  and  the 
poising  of  his  will  aright.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to 
find  the  early  Arminians  coming  out  boldly,  and  using  such 
language  as  this — "I  believe  that  the  death  of  Christ  might 
have  had  its  end,  though  never  any  man  had  believed" — 
"that  it  may  so  come  to  pass,  that  none  at  all  fulfilling  the 
condition  of  the  new  covenant,  none  might  be  saved,"  and 
"that  the  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ  depends  wholly  on 
us."* 

The  doctrine  of  the  final,  irrevocable  fall  of  some  of  those 
who  have  obtained  an  interest  in  "  the  efficacy  of  Christ's 
death,"  and  become  "his  sheep,"  is  of  course  a  natural  con- 
*  Owen's  Display,  &c.  chap.  9,  where  the  original  Latin  ia  given. 

15* 


174  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X 

sequence  from  such  premises.  And  it  is  equally  plain,  that  if 
all  who  ever  were  or  shall  be  true  Christians  should  finally 
perish,  Christ's  death  would  equally  have  "had  its  end  !" 

In  the  light  of  these  extraordinary  positions,  as  maintained 
by  Arminians,  we  proceed  to  examine, 

IV.    The  Difficulties  of  Arminian  Methodism,  on 

THE    SUBJECT   OF    "  FALLING   FROM    GRACE." 

There  is  no  dispute  whether  true  believers  may  fall  for  a 
time  into  grievous  sins,  and  thus  incur  God's  displeasure, 
grieve  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  lose  the  active  exercise  of  grace 
and  their  spiritual  comfort.  Neither  is  there  any  room  for 
doubt,  that  if  left  of  God  to  their  own  strength,  they  must 
inevitably  fall  and  perish.  The  only  question  is,  whether  those 
whom  God  "  hath  accepted  in  the  Beloved,"  effectually  called, 
"  begotten  to  a  lively  hope,"  purchased  "  with  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ  as  of  a  Lamb  slain,"  and  sanctified  by  his  in- 
dwelling Spirit,  are  ever  so  forsaken  of  God  that  they  totally 
and  finally  fall  into  sin  and  damnation.  This  we  cannot  be- 
lieve, for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  The  concessions  made  by  the  more  judicious  Arminians, 
go  far  to  prove  the  exceeding  doubtfulness  of  their  positions. 
Thus  the  General  Conference,  speaking  by  Mr.  Wesley — "  I 
am  sensible  either  side  of  this  question  is  attended  with  great 
difficulties,  such  as  reason  alone  could  never  remove."  * 
This  is  the  tone  of  a  wary,  prudent  man,  and  very  different 
from  the  following :  "  To  embrace  it  (the  doctrine  of  perse- 
verance,) is  to  act  in  advance  of,  if  not  to  abandon  common 
sense!"  Again:  "Is  this  Christianity?  Is  this  iniquitous 
teaching  (the  doctrine  of  perseverance,)  to  be  palmed  upon  the 
world  as  God's  truth  ?"f 

*  Doet.  Tracts,  p.  211.    Arminius  himself  says:  "I  declare  very  frankly, 
that  I  have  never  taught  that  a  true  believer  will  finally  and  totally  fall  away 
and  perish."     Bib.  Repository,  for  April,  1831. 
f  Objections,  pp.  197,  199. 


Let.  X.         FALLING  FROM  GRACE.  175 

Again  :  Mr.  "Wesley,  at  one  period  of  his  life  (1743),  said  : 
"With  regard  to  final  perseverance,  I  incline  to  believe  that 
there  is  a  state  attainable  in  this  life,  from  which  a  man  CAN- 
NOT finally  fall,  and  that  he  has  attained  this  who  can  say, 
'  old  things  are  passed  away,  &c."*  Observe,  (1.)  Mr.  Wesley 
here  takes  high  Calvinistic  ground,  too  high  for  most  Presby- 
terians. Substitute  for  Mr.  W's.  cannot,  the  phrase  will  not, 
because  God's  grace  prevents — and  then  you  have  the  true 
doctrine.  (2.)  According  to  Messrs.  Foster  &  Simpson,  Mr. 
Wesley  was,  at  that  time,  "  inclined  to  "  "  abandon  common 
sense,"  "  the  known  conviction  and  consciousness  of  all  Chris- 
tians," adopt  "  the  fate  and  absurdity  of  the  (Calvinistic) 
system,"  &c !  We  infer,  therefore,  that  he  had  beyond  all 
doubt  "fallen  from  grace!"  The  ground  and  evidence  of 
this  sad  fall  are  found  in  his  u  strong  desire  to  unite  with 
Mr.  Whitefield  and  to  cut  off,  as  far  as  possible,  needless  dis- 
pute, f  Whether  these  were  crimes  of  sufficient  magnitude 
to  produce  such  a  fall,  we  will  not  venture  to  decide. 

So  also  when  Watson  and  Wesley,  as  before  epioted,  adopt 
the  doctrine  of  "  irresistible  grace,"  the  former  affirming 
that  "  men  are  sometimes  suddenly  and  irresistibly  awakened 
by  the  Spirit  of  God ;"  and  the  latter,  "  that  Divine  grace 
does  for  a  time  work  as  irresistibly  as  lightning  from  heaven;" 
and  when  Wesley  adds,  "  I  do  not  deny  that  in  some  souls 
the  grace  of  Grod  is  so  far  irresistible  that  they  cannot  but 
believe  and  be  finally  saved" — this  is  certainly  the  doctrine 
of  final  perseverance  ;  and  that  too  in  an  extreme  form  which 
few  Calvinists  would  be  willing  to  indorse.  If  these  extraor- 
dinary acts  of  mercy  are  performed  for  the  elect  few  among 
Arminians,  why  are  they  not  performed  for  others  ?  Is  not 
this  Arminian  partial  grace  ?  If  this  irresistible  "  light- 
ning "  sort  of  conversion  elects  or  chooses  some,  how  cruel  to 
leave  the  rest  to  perish  without  the  requisite  flash  ?  Is  this 
what  Arminians  mean  by  "merciless  tyranny?" 
*  Worka,  vol.  iii,  p.  289.  f  Ibid. 


176  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMLNIANISM.  Let.  X. 

2.  The  perfections  of  God  present  an  insuperable  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  the  doctrine  of  "  falling  from  grace."  He  is 
infinitely  just,  but  the  surety  of  the  covenant  has  satisfied 
Divine  justice;  Christ  has  purchased  his  church  with  his 
blood,  even  every  individual  soul  of  that  church ;  and  of 
course  the  believer  is  safe  with  such  a  "friend  at  court."  On 
the  theory  of  the  Arminian,  the  soul  may  be  formed  in  the 
image  of  Christ,  a  new  creature,  and  become  the  temple  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  She  may  be  interested  in  the  "  perfect  re- 
demption and  satisfaction  "  made  for  all  her  sins.  She  may 
be  justified  before  the  righteous  Judge,  and  have  all  her 
transgressions  blotted  out  through  the  tender  compassions  of  a 
covenant-keeping  God.  Justice  may  be  satisfied,  the  law 
honored  and  magnified,  and  the  new-born  spirit  placed  under 
the  care  of  the  great  Shepherd,  who  ransomed  her  with  his 
blood,  whose  love  is  immutable,  as  his  power  is  infinite.  But 
all  in  vain.  To-day,  the  soul  is  embraced  in  the  arms  of  an 
almighty  Saviour,  bears  his  image  and  is  sealed  with  his 
blood — to-morrow,  she  is  the  victim  of  malicious  fiends,  ex- 
ulting over  her  agonies  amid  the  horrors  of  eternal  woe. 
Yesterday,  all  her  sins  were  forgiven,  through  a  "  perfect 
propitiation  and  satisfaction  " — to-day,  all  her  sins  are  charged 
to  her  account;  Christ's  perfect  atonement  avails  not-;  but 
the  dread  penalty  of  the  violated  law  is  poured  upon  her  de- 
voted head.  Yesterday,  the  soul  was  one  of  Christ's  sheep, 
of  whom  he  has  said,  "  They  shall  never  perish — I  know  them, 
and  they  follow  me" — to-day,  it  is  one  of  those  to  whom  he 
says,  "  Depart  ye  cursed,  I  never  knew  you."  Yesterday,  she 
was  accpiitted  and  accepted  as  of  the  number  of  the  "good, 
whose  steps  are  ordered  by  the  Lord;  who,  though  they  fall, 
shall  not  be  utterly  cast  down,  for  the  Lord  upholdeth  them 
with  his  hand,"  (Ps.  37  :  23,  25)  — to-day,  she  is  found 
guilty,  rejected  as  vile,  and  falls  to  rise  no  more  !  Does  the 
blessed  Saviour  mean  what  he  says,  "I  know  them?"  But 
at  the  day  of  judgment,  he  will  say  to  those  at  his  left  hand, 


Let.  X.         FALLING  FROM  GRACE.  177 

"I  never  knew  you."  How  could  this  be  true,  if  he  had 
known  many  who  were  once  his  sheep,  but  now  declares  he 
never  knew  (hem?     Thus  the  truth  of  God  is  implicated. 

God  is  unchangeable,  and  loves  his  people  "  with  an  ever- 
lasting love,  therefore  with  loving  kindness  does  he  draw 
them."  Jer.  21 : 3.  How  then  can  he  hate  those  whom  he 
loves  with  an  "  everlasting  love  V 

God  is  infinitely  wise  and  powerful.  But  is  it  consistent 
with  this  truth  to  suppose  that  he  new-creates  by  his  Spirit 
to-day,  the  soul  which  he  has  "purposed  from  eternity,"  as 
Watson  says,  to  cast  into  hell  to-morrow  ?  Paul  did  not 
think  so — for  he  was  "  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he 
which  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you,  will  perform  it  until 
the  day  of  Jesus  Christ."     Phil.  1 :  6. 

God  is  infinitely  faithful  to  his  Son,  and  to  all  his  promi- 
ses. Therefore  his  "  elect  *  *  *  are  kept  by  his  power 
through  faith  unto  salvation."  1  Pet.  1  :  2—5.  The  promise 
to  the  Redeemer  was  that  "a  seed  should  be  given  him," 
that  those  whom  the  Father  had  promised  him  should  come 
unto  him,  be  taught  of  God,  receive  the  Spirit  and  be  raised 
up  at  the  last  day.  Those  blessings  involve  the  certain  salva- 
tion of  all  on  whom  they  are  bestowed.  He  is  "  the  good 
Shepherd — lays  down  his  life  for  the  sheep — loves  the  church 
and  gave  himself  for  it."  Arminians  seem  to  adopt  the  New 
School  notions — that  the  death  of  the  Saviour  merely  makes 
pardon  possible,  but  was  not  designed  to  save,  not  to 
purify,  not  to  bring  us  near  to  God.  Very  different  is  the 
promise  of  Jehovah — "  I  will  put  my  fear  in  their  hearts, 
that  they  shall  not  depart  from  me."  Jer.  31 :  40.  "  The 
righteous  shall  hold  on  his  way."  Job  17  : 9.  "  If  any 
man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever."  John  6  :  5. 
"  Whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."  Rom.  8  :  30. 
Thus  the  Scriptures  represent  true  believers  as  firmly  estab- 
lisked,  and  on  an  everlasting  foundation;  immovable  like 
Mount  Zion,  as  a  rock,  or  a  house  built  on  a  rock ;  they  are 


178  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X. 

God's  jewels,  his  peculiar  treasure  which  shall  not  be  lost ; 
and  as  a  spring  whose  waters  fail  not,  as  trees  whose  leaf 
shall  not  wither.  Thus  too  their  graces,  in  virtue  of  their 
union  with  Christ  as  "  the  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh, 
and  of  his  bones,"  are  an  "  incorruptible  seed,"  "  the  seed  of 
God  which  abideth  in  them."  1  John  3:9.  So  that  their 
faith  overcomes  the  world,  fails  not,  and  their  hope  never 
makes  ashamed. 

3.  To  suppose  redeemed  and  regenerated  souls  to  perish,  is 
inconsistent  with  the  honor  of  all  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity. 
Of  the  Father,  who  promised  thein  to  the  Son  as  the  reward 
of  his  mediatorial  work — of  the  Son,  who  "bought  them 
with  a  price,  even  his  own  precious  blood" — of  the  Spirit, 
whose  temples  they  are,  who  is  a  perpetual  fountain  within 
them,  "springing  up  unto  everlasting  life," — and  who  is  the 
earnest  of  their  inheritance,  the  infallible  seal  of  God,  con- 
firming them  to  everduriug  happiness. 

4.  The  intercession  of  Christ  demonstrates  the  falsity  of  this 
Arminian  notion.  "  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost." 
Why  ?  "  Because  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for 
those  that  come  unto  God  by  him."  Heb.  7  :  25.  "  Him  the 
Father  heareth  always."  "  I  pray  for  them,  not  for  the 
world," — "I  pray  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me 
through  their  word."  And  what  was  the  object  of  his  pray- 
ers ?  To  Peter  he  said — "  I  have  prayed  for  thee  that  thy 
faith  fail  not."  And  again — "  Father,  I  will  that  they 
also  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  BE  with  me  where  I  AM, 
that  they  may  behold  my  glory."  "  Holy  Father,  keep 
through  thine  own  name,  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me." 
John  17  :  9,  11,  24.  The  persons  for  whom  Christ  intercedes, 
are  "  all  that  shall  believe  on  him."  The  objects  he  prays 
for,  are  their  being  kept  in  the  exercise  of  unfailing  faith,  and 
their  final  glorification  with  him.  Does  he  ever  ask  and  not 
receive  ?  Here  is  his  own  reply — "  I  know  that  thou  hearest 
me  always."     On  the  Arminian  scheme  all  these  precious 


Let.  X.  FALLING   FROM    GRACE.  179 

assur  mces  are  falsified  in  various  instances,  and  the  very  truth 
of  him  who  is  the  Truth,  is  made  of  none  effect ! 

5.  The  certainty  of  final  salvation  to  all  who  are  "new- 
oreated  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  "raised  from  the  dead,  accord- 
ing to  the  mighty  power  whereby  God  raised  up  Jesus," — is 
further  evident  from  the  peculiar  phraseology  employed.  So 
firmly  established  is  the  promise,  that  it  is  represented  as 
already  fulfilled — they  "have  everlasting  life."  "He  that 
heareth  my  word  and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath 
everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation." 
John  5  :  34.  "  They  are  preserved  forever — they  cannot  sin," 
i.  e.  cannot  fall  into  permanent,  habitual  sin ;  eanuot  become 
sin-doers,  as  the  original  signifies.  So  "  it  is  God  that  justi- 
fieth,"  pardons,  accepts,  and  saves  them — "  who  is  he  that 
condemneth  ?"  "  And  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the 
angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth."  Why  this 
joy  ?  Because  "  he  which  converteth  the  sinner  from  the 
error  of  his  ways,  shall  save  a  soul I  from  death."  Jas.  5  :  20. 
"Was  this  joy  ever  premature  ? 

6.  The  same  conclusions  follow  from  the  reasons  which 
inspired  men  assign,  when  accounting  for  the  apostasy  of  cer- 
tain persons.  Thus  "  the  beloved  disciple  :"  he  is  warning 
the  church  against  "  the  love  of  the  world,"  which  is  the 
very  spirit  of  antichrist.  Some  had  already  fallen  :  "  They 
went  out  from  us."  Why  so  ?  Because  "  they  were  not 
OP  us."  "For  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they  would  no  doubt 
have  continued  with  us.  But  they  went  out  from  us,  that 
they  might  be  made  manifest  that  they  were  not  all  of  us." 
1  John  2  :  19.  Observe,  he  does  not  say,  "they  were  onco 
Christians,"  but  "  they  were  not  of  us,"  i.  e,  they  never  were 
Christians,  otherwise  they  would  have  continued  with  us. 

7.  The  blessed  Saviour,  "  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life," 
clearly  asserts  the  impossibility  of  deceiving  finally  his  own 
people.  Thus  :  "  False  Christs  and  false  prophets  shall  arise, 
and  shall  show  signs  and  wonders,  to  seduce,  if  it  were  pos~ 


180  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X. 

sible,  even  the  elect."  Mark  13  :  22.  The  Arminian,  how- 
ever, feels  no  such  difficulty  or  hesitation  in  admitting  the 
possibility  of  deceiving  the  elect.  "  We  have  proved,"  he 
says,  "  that  the  number  of  the  elect  may  be  diminished."  * 
So  also,  when  the  covenant-keeping  God  promises  to  David, 
as  an  illustrious  type  of  Christ :  "  My  covenant  will  I  not 
break,  nor  alter  the  thing  that  has  gone  out  of  my  mouth. 
Once  have  I  sworn  by  my  holiness  that  I  will  not  lie  unto 
David."  Psalm  89  :  34,  35.  The  General  Conference  reply: 
"God  did  break  the  covenant  of  his  servant."  "He  did 
alter  the  thing  that  had  gone  out  of  his  lips."  "  God  did 
also  fail  David"  We  will  not  "  return  railing  for  railing;" 
but  there  is  strong  temptation  to  ask  :  "Is  this  Christianity? 
Is  this  iniquitous  teaching  (of  Arminians)  to  be  palmed  upon 
the  world  as  God's  truth  ?"  f 

We  have  thus  endeavored  to  condense  into  brief  space  a 
number  of  the  leading  arguments  which  overthrow  the  Armin- 
ian doctrine  of  "  falling  from  grace."  It  may  be  proper  now 
to  notice  objections  to  the  reasoning  employed.  To  evade 
the  force  of  such  texts  as  those  cited  requires  some  polemical 
skill.  As,  for  example,  when  Paul  inquires,  "  Who  shall 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ  ?"  and  adds  his  persuasion 
that  neither  death  nor  life,  &c.  should  be  able  to  separate  us 
from  his  love.  The  Arminian  adds,  "  Very  true,  if  Chris- 
tians hold  fast  their  integrity."  In  other  words,  if  they  per- 
severe, they  will  persevere  !  "  My  sheep  shall  never  perish, 
neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand ;"  i.  e.  replies 
the  Arminian,  if  they  remain  Christ's  sheep.  In  other 
words,  the  promise  is,  "  If  they  remain  his  sheep,  they  shall 
remain  his  sheep  !"  "  I  will  put  my  fear  in  their  hearts,  that 
they  shall  not  depart  from  me ;"  that  is,  if  they  do  not  depart 
from  God,  they  shall  not  depart !  "  The  righteous  shall  hold 
on  his  way;"  i.  e.  if  he  does  hold  on  his  way  I  "The  steps 
of  a  good  man  are  ordered  by  the  Lord  :  though  he  fall,  he 
*  Watson's  Inst.  vol.  ii.  p.  340.  f  Objootions,  &o.  p.  197. 


Let.  X.  FALLING   FROM   GRACE.  181 

shall  not  he  utterly  cast  down,  for  the  Lord  upholdeth  him 
with  his  hand."  That  is,  if  he  continues  to  be  a  good  man, 
he  shall  not  be  utterly  cast  down.  In  other  words,  if  he  do 
not  fall,  or  falling,  riseth  iqy  again,  he  shall  not  remain  cast 
down  !  And  if  he  hold  himself  up,  the  Lord  will  uphold  him 
with  his  hand  !  According  to  Methodist  interpretation,  these 
consolatory  passages,  which  have  filled  the  Christian's  bosom 
a  thousand  times  with  unutterable  joy,  are  nothing  more  than 
identical  propositions.  "If  such  an  event  take  place,  it  will 
take  place  !" 

In  like  manner  (John  14  :  19),  "Whosoever  drinketh  of 
the  water  that  I  shall  give  him,  shall  never  thirst,  *  *  * 
but  it  shall  be  in  him  a  well  of  water  springing  up  into  ever- 
lasting life."  "  He  shall  never  thirst."  It  is  a  pitiful 
evasion  to  say  that  he  shall  not  thirst  while  he  is  drinking, 
but  that  if  he  gives  over  using  this  water,  he  shall  thirst 
again ;  for  this  was  true  of  the  water  of  Jacob's  well,  as  well 
as  of  the  living  water  with  which  it  is  placed  in  contrast. 
It  is  obviously  taught  that  "  he  shall  never  thirst,"  because 
the  fountain  springs  up  within  him,  i.  e.  the  Spirit  shall  con- 
tinue to  inhabit  those  to  whom  he  has  been  given,  till  the 
work  of  glorification  crowns  the  whole.*  In  confirmation  of 
this  reasoning,  Paul  in  2  Cor.  1  :  21,  22,  says,  "  He  which 
stablisheth  us  with  you  in  Christ  and  hath  anointed  us,  is 
God ;  who  bath  also  sealed  us  and  given  us  the  earnest  of  the 
Spirit  in  our  hearts."  "He  hath  sealed  us."  A  seal  was 
employed  to  mark  possession,  to  secure  treasures  or  to  au- 
thenticate a  title  to  property.  Thus  the  Holy  Spirit  marlcs 
believers  as  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  guards  them  as  his 
precious  jewels,  and  establishes  and  ratifies  their  title  to  ever- 
lasting glory.  These  are  the  very  blessings  for  which  the 
Saviour  prays  :  "  Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name 
those  that  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one  as  we 
are."  "  Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also."  The  very  living 
*  Turretine,  Be  Peraeverentia.    Dick's  Lectures. 

16 


182  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X. 

faith  which  Peter  needed  to  sustain  him  under  the  bufferings 
of  Satan — the  very  guardianship  which  God  alone  can  exer- 
cise over  the  soul,  are  the  objects  for  which  he  prays.  To 
interpret  all  this  as  the  Arminian  does:  "They  will  be  kept, 
if  they  'watch  and  pray/"  i.  e.  keep  themselves;  "they  will 
finally  be  with  Christ,  if  they  do  not  stop  in  the  way,"  is 
puerile  in  the  extreme.  For  the  gracious  affections  which 
prompt  the  soul  to  persevere  in  watching  and  praying,  and  in 
every  good  work,  are  the  very  gifts  which  Christ  asks  of  his 
Father,  the  very  mercies  which  the  Father,  in  answer  to  his 
intercession,  always  bestows,  and  "  the  very  living  water 
which  springs  up  in  the  soul  into  everlasting  life."  It  is  not 
denied  that  spiritual  life,  like  that  of  the  body,  may  exist  in 
almost  an  infinite  variety  of  degrees,  just  as  a  wasting  disease 
often  gradually  saps  the  foundations  of  health,  until  scarce  a 
shadow  of  former  strength  remains.  But  still  there  is  life; 
the  principle  of  life  lingering  so  as  to  render  it  often- 
times very  difficult  to  decide  where  the  precise  point  of  disso- 
lution occurs.  Something  of  this  sort,  except  the  final  issue, 
pertains  to  the  health  of  the  soul.  So  there  is  a  natural  sleep, 
which  is  "  the  image  of  death,"  and  there  is  a  collapse  of  the 
physical  powers,  which  still  more  resembles  death.  But  in 
these  cases  the  vital  principle,  though  temporarily  inactive,  is 
not  extinct.  Something  of  the  same  nature  is  doubtless  felt  in 
the  experience  of  many  who  are  true  Christians;  but  the  rea- 
sons of  it  belong  not  to  this  discussion.  To  the  mind  of  the 
Calvinist,  however,  few  truths  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  ap- 
pear more  demonstrably  evident,  than  the  doctrine  of  the  final 
perseverance  of  all  who  are  "  bought  with  the  blood"  of 
Christ.  The  opposite,  or  Arminian  doctrine,  strikes  us  as 
most  dishonorable  to  the  knowledge  and  wisdom  of  God,  and 
to  the  perfection  and  efficacy  of  the  "  finished  work"  of  atone- 
ment. Nor  is  it  more  adapted  to  cherish  false  views  of  the 
nature  and  attributes  of  the  Supreme  Ruler,  than  to  confuse 
the  spiritual  perceptions  and  dry  up  the  consolations  of  true 


Let.  X.  FALLING   FROM   GRACE.  183 

believers.  u  If  I  could  believe  these  things,"  says  the  ven- 
erable Dr.  Miller,  "  I  must  consider  the  character  of  God  as 
dishonored ;  his  counsels  as  degraded  to  a  chaos  of  wishes 
and  endeavors ;  his  promises  as  the  fallible  and  uncertain 
declarations  of  circumscribed  knowledge  and  endless  doubt  j 
the  best  hopes  of  the  Christian  as  liable  every  hour  to  be 
blasted ;  and  the  whole  plan  of  salvation  as  nothing  better 
than  a  gloomy  system  of  possibilities  and  peradventures;  a 
system,  on  the  whole,  nearly  if  not  quite  as  likely  to  land  the 
believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned  as  in  the  paradise  of 
God." 

Let  us  next  examine  some  of  the  more  common  objections 
to  the  Perseverance  of  Saints. 

1.  It  is  objected  that  it  denies  man's  free  agency,  and  leads 
to  the  doctrine  of  Fate.  To  prove  this  our  Confession  is 
quoted:  "They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  the  Beloved  and 
sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  CAN  neither  totally  nor  finally  fall 
away."  "  True  believers  cannot  fall  totally  or  finally  from 
grace."  *  This  is  said  to  mean  that  believers  "have  no  suf- 
ficient power"  to  fall  from  grace, f  but  are  mere  machines, 
uuder  "  unavoidable  necessity  and  controlled  by  fate,"  and 
of  course  "  no  longer  free."  But  in  employing  such  terms 
to  express  only  a  strong  degree  of  certainty,  Calvinists  closely 
copy  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Thus  Joseph's  brethren  "could 
not  speak  peaceably  to  him."  "Those  having  eyes  full  of 
adultery,  cannot  cease  from  sin."  "  The  carnal  mind  is 
not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be — the 
natural  man  cannot  know  the  things  of  the  Spirit."  "They 
that  arc  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God."  "  No  man  can 
come  to  me,  except  the  Father  draw  him."  Interpret  these 
and  similar  passages  according  to  Bishop  Simpson  and  Mr. 
Foster,  and  these  various  classes  of  sinners  are  under  "  un- 
avoidable necessity"  to  sin,  and,  of  course,  are  no  longer 
blamable  !  If  Arminians  would  read  their  Bibles  more  and 
*  Dr.  Dick,  vol.  ii.  p.  284.  f  Objections,  p.  196. 


184  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X. 

their  standard  writers  less,  they  would  not  so  often  be  caught 
in  such  inextricable  blunders. 

2.  It  is  objected,  that  if  "  Adam  and  the  holy  angels  fell 
from  purity,  why  not  regenerated  persons  ?"  We  answer,  the 
cases  are  altogether  different.  The  angels  and  Adam  had  no 
promise  of  a  faithful  God,  that  "  they  should  not  depart  from 
him,"  no  covenant  assurance  that  they  should  "  never  perish." 
Besides,  the  standing  of  believers  steadfastly  in  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  truth,  is  not  in  their  own  strength,  but  by 
grace  and  sufficiency  purchased  by  atoning  blood.  Their  per- 
severance is  therefore  firm  and  assured,  even  as  the  perfect 
"  righteousness  "  of  their  Substitute  and  Surety,  and  infallibly 
certain  as  Christ's  prayers  to  be  answered.  "Because  I  live, 
ye  shall  live  also."  The  continued  obedience  of  Adam  had 
no  such  firm  foundation  as  this.  Thus  it  is,  that  "a  just 
man  falleth  seven  times  and  riseth  up  again,"*  "for  the 
Lord  upholdeth  him  with  his  hand."  Neither  will  this  take 
place  without  the  believer's  own  exertions,  in  the  prayerful 
and  diligent  use  of  the  appropriate  means  of  grace.  No 
one  holds  that  "  the  man  may  indulge  to  the  utmost  excess 
and  yet  be  safe,"  any  more  than  the  farmer  will  receive  a 
crop  if  he  do  not  labor  for  it,  or  life  will  be  continued  without 
food.  "  Final  perseverance  "  is  a  perseverance  in  "  holiness, 
and  the  end  everlasting  life."  Neither  is  it  a  lawful  infer- 
ence from  this  doctrine,  that  a  believer  having  fallen  into 
sin,  if  he  die  impenitent,  will  be  saved;  but  that  no  true 
saint  will  be  suffered  thus  to  die.  In  the  language  of  Wesle}', 
"he  is  immortal  till  his  work  is  done;"  and  one  important 
part  of  that  work  is  his  own  preparation  for  a  death  of  peace 
and  a  future  life. 

3.  It  is  objected  that  the  final  fall  and  perdition  of  "the 
righteous  "  is  assumed  in  Ezek.  18  :  24 — "  When  the  right- 
eous turneth  away  from  his  righteousness  and  committeth 
iniquity,    *     *     *     in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  he  shall 

*  Prov.  24  :  16. 


Let.  X.  FALLING  FROM  GRACE.  185 

die."  Admitting,  for  the  present,  that  this  refers  to  that 
spiritual  nature  secured  in  regeneration  (which  is  not  certain*), 
it  is  a  sufficient  reply  that  there  are  many  similar  supposed 
cases  in  the  Bible,  where  it  is  positively  certain  the  things 
supposed  will  never  take  place.  Thus  Levit.  18:5 — "Ye 
shall  keep  my  statutes  and  my  judgments,  which  if  a  man 
do,  he  shall  live  in  them."  Paul  refers  to  this  text  (Rom. 
10  :  5 ;  Gal.  3  :  12),  and  interprets  it  to  mean  that  if  a  man 
should  obey  perfectly  the  Divine  law,  he  would  be  justified 
by  works.  But  does  it  follow  that  any  ordinary  man  ever  did 
or  ever  will  perfectly  obey  the  whole  law  ?  He  answers : 
"  By  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified."  So 
also,  "  though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  should  preach  any 
other  gospel,  *  *  *  let  him  be  accursed;"  may  we  thence 
infer  that  Paul  or  a  holy  angel  ever  will  "  preach  another 
gospel  ?"  Suppose  a  minister  should  say,  If  an  Ethiopian 
shall  change  his  skin,  or  a  camel  go  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle,  tiiex  will  certain  classes  of  the  ungodly  be  purified 
and  saved ;  would  any  person  understand  him  to  mean,  that 
the  negro  ever  does  or  will  wash  himself  white,  or  a  camel 
pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  ?  These  hypothetical  cases 
furnish  a  ready  clew  to  solve  many  similar  difficulties.  If 
believers  do  not  "forgive  their  enemies,"  neither  will  God 
forgive  them ;  but  this  by  no  means  proves  that  a  true  Chris- 
tian ever  dies  cherishing  an  unforgiving  temper.  Of  the 
pardoned,  God  says,  "  Their  sins  and  iniquities  will  I  remem- 
ber no  more."  How  can  this  be,  if  such  a  soul  will  have  all 
his  sins  called  into  judgment,  and  he  doomed  to  eternal  woe 
on  their  account  ? 

4.   Heb.  6:4-6  speaks  of  those  "who  were  once  enlight- 
ened, tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  were  made  partakers  of  the 

*  See  Deut.  25:1 — "If  thero  be  a  controversy  between   men,  and  tboy 
come  into  judgment,  *     *    *  then  the  judges  shall  justify  the  righteous  and 

condemn  the  wicked."  The  righteous  in  this  text  moans  a  person  with  a 
righteous  cause,  which  a  vsry  wicked  man  often  has  before  courts  of  justice. 
See  also  parallel  passages  iu  1  Kings  2  :  32 ;  2  Kings  10  :  9. 

16* 


186  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X. 

Holy  Ghost,  &c.  if  they  shall  fall  away,  it  is  impossible  to 
renew  them  again  to  repentance."  This  text  is  supposed  to 
contain  a  strong  argument  against  our  doctrine. 

But  besides  that  the  case  is  hypothetical,  not  asserted  as  a 
real  occurrence — there  is  this  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the 
Arminian  interpretation  :  the  class  of  persons  here  described 
cannot  be  restored  to  repentance.*  But  those  who  "fall  from 
grace"  in  Arminian  churches,  may  fall  and  rise  every  day, 
and  even  every  hour  !  Besides,  Paul  tells  us  that  he  did  not 
apply  these  admonitory  words  to  those  Hebrews  to  whom  he 
wrote,  for  he  was  "  persuaded  better  things  of  them,  even 
things  which  accompany  salvation."  Ver.  9.  Thus  he 
clearly  indicates  his  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  their  persever- 
ance unto  the  end,  that  they  might  be  saved. 

5.  A  fifth  objection  is  founded  on  Rev.  22  :  19 — "  If  any 
man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  life, 
God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out 
of  the  holy  city."  To  explain  this,  we  should  remember 
that  persons  are  often  spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  according  to 
their  apparent  or  visible  character,  rather  than  their  real 
standing  before  God.  So  Christ  addresses  the  twelve  disci- 
ples— "I  say  unto  you,  my  friends," — but  Judas  was  not  his 
friend,  but  a  devil.  And  when  he  promises  them  "  twelve 
thrones"  in  heaven,  he  certainly  did  not  include  Judas,  "  who 
went  to  his  own  place."  So  also  when  (Matt.  13  :  12)  he 
says — "Whosoever  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given,  *  *  * 
but  whosoever  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even 
that  which  he  hath," — in  the  parallel  passage,  Luke  8:18,  it 
reads,  "even  that  which  he  seemeth  to  have."     So  in  talcing 

*  Dr.  Clarke  admits  that  there  is  "a  good  sense  in  which  all  these  things 
may  be  applied  to  the  Jews  at  large,  who  were  favored  by  our  Lord's  min- 
istry and  miracles."  Of  course  the  reference  will  then  be  "to  their  state, 
which  had  received  much  moral  cultivation  from  Moses,  the  prophets,  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  and  now  bore  only  pride,  unbelief,  and  hardness  of  heart," 
Ac.  Com.  lleb.  6:8.  If  this  be  true,  the  passage  does  not  refer  to  tho 
apostasy  of  true  believers. 


Let.  X.  FALLING   FROM   GRACE.  187 

aicay  "  the  part''  of  the  person  spoken  of,  God  shall  make  it 
manifest  that  he  had  "  no  part  or  lot  in  these  things" — he 
shall  take  from  him  even  that  which  he  seemed  to  have. 

6.  Another  Arminian  objection  is  founded  on  the  very 
numerous  warnings  and  cautions  given  to  Christians  by  the 
inspired  writers,  "  to  take  heed  lest  they  fall,"  "  be  cast 
away,"  &c.  But  these  are  to  be  viewed  as  the  Divinely  ap- 
pointed means  of  securing  their  perseverance.  A  parallel 
case  is  that  of  Paul's  shipwreck.  Acts  27.  The  angel  of 
God  appeared  to  him  and  assured  him  that  not  a  soul  should 
perish  of  all  that  were  in  the  ship.  This  of  course  insured 
that  result — but  it  did  not  make  the  exertions  of  the  seamen 
needless.  On  the  contrary  when  they  were  about  to  leave  the 
vessel,  Paul  said  to  the  centurion,  "  Except  these  abide  in  the 
ship,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  Thus  the  event,  though  certain, 
was  to  be  brought  about  by  the  proper  instrumentality,  but 
not  without  it.  Hezekiah's  life,  too,  was,  by  special  promise 
of  God,  prolonged  fifteen  years — but  he  was  directed  to  em- 
ploy the  appropriate  means  for  his  recovery,  nor  could  he  live 
without  food.  Just  so  is  it  with  the  certain  perseverance  of 
the  true  believer.  These  admonitions  and  other  spiritual 
aids  are  the  bread  and  water  which  support  and  prolong  the 
health  and  vigor  of  his  soul,  and  secure  its  final  salvation. 

7.  Again  we  are  referred  to  the  grievous  falls  of  some  of 
the  most  distinguished  of  God's  people,  Noah,  David,  Solo- 
mon and  others.  We  admit  that  one  clear,  unequivocal  ex- 
ample of  a  true  friend  of  God,  a  soul  reconciled  by  faith  in 
Christ,  having  totally  and  finally  apostatized  and  perished, 
would  settle  the  cmestion.  But  there  is  no  sxich  case  on 
record.  Christ  tells  us  that  "  many  will  prophesy  and  cast 
out  devils  in  his  name" — but  he  will  say  to  them,  "  I  never 
KNEW  you."  Persons  may  appear  to  make  great  attainments 
in  religion ;  while  it  is  all  a  form  of  godliness  without  the 
power — they  have  no  oil  of  true  grace  in  their  lamps.  And 
as  regards  the   deplorable   lapses  of  eminent  Christians,  if 


188  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X. 

they  fell,  they  rose  again,  being  "kept  by  the  power  of  God, 
through  faith  unto  salvation." 

It  is  not  questioned  that  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance 
may  be  perverted  and  abused  by  hypocrites  and  wicked  men. 
But  so  may  every  other  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  That  there  is 
no  such  tendency  in  the  true  statement  of  our  doctrine,  what- 
ever may  be  the  result  of  the  misrepresentations  of  its  ene- 
mies, is  obvious.  If  in  any  case  it  seems  to  encourage  licen- 
tious or  careless  living,  we  may  feel  assured  it  is  owing  to  a 
perversion  of  the  truth,  which  implies  in  its  very  essence,  a 
perseverance  in  holiness  as  of  the  very  nature  of  persever- 
ance unto  salvation.  No  man  has  any  evidence  of  conversion, 
while  he  chooses  to  live  in  the  practice  of  iniquity.  The 
perseverance  of  such  a  person  is  unto  everlasting  perdition. 
But  in  regard  to  him  whose  heart  God  in  the  exercise  of  in- 
finite, unmerited  goodness,  has  renewed,  even  when  he  was 
dead  in  sin,  what  possible  motive  could  he  have  to  forsake 
such  a  soul  ?  Is  it  on  account  of  his  sins  ?  The  Apostle 
answers — "  If  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to 
God,  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled, 
we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life."  In  the  language  of  another, 
"  God  will  extinguish  the  sun  and  the  moon,  and  all  the 
stars ;  he  will  burn  up  the  world — but  he  will  first  '  gather 
together  his  elect  from  the  four  corners  of  heaven.'  "* 

But  while  the  doctrine  of  "  saints'  perseverance"  may  be 
perverted  and  abused  to  licentiousness,  the  doctrine  of  "falling 
from  grace"  is  the  natural  and  legitimate  source  of  much  of 
that  instability  and  uncertainty  which  mark  the  conversions 
of  Methodism.  Those  who  have  long  and  carefully  studied 
this  subject,  with  the  largest  facilities  for  a  correct  estimate, 
assure  us  that  about  "  nine-tenths  of  the  whole  are  found  to 
be  spurious,  i.  e.   '  fall  from  grace,'  after  a  longer  or  shorter 

*  Tract  on  Perseverance,  issued  by  the  Congregational  Board  of  Publica- 
tion. In  answering  those  objections,  tho  author  is  indebted  for  a  number  of 
suggestions  to  this  source. 


Let.  X.  FALLING   FROM   GRACE.  189 

trial!"  They  mention  cases  where  as  many  as  thirty  persona 
were  received  into  class,  of  whom,  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
only  two  remained — of  forty  said  to  be  converted,  every  one 
of  whom  became  backsliders — and  of  one  hundred  and  five 
counted  as  converts,  all  but  two  of  whom  fell  away.  Said 
one  of  this  class  of  converts,  "  I  have  been  a  member  of  the 
church,  off  and  on,  seventeen  years.1'  A  class-leader  of  this 
sort  was  exhorting  his  mother  "  to  be  born  again  and  be- 
come a  dear,  good  Methodist."  She  replied,  "  You  have  been 
born  again  now  ten  times,  and  I  am  afraid  if  you  should 
be  converted  ten  times  more,  you  will  never  get  to  heaven."* 
The  great  radical  transformation  of  the  soul  described  by  its 
Author  as  "  a  new  creation,"  a  "  spiritual  resurrection,"  "  a 
new  life,"  is  degraded  to  a  process  not  dissimilar  to  the 
putting  on  and  off  of  a  coat!  Falling  and  rising  up  again  is 
a  very  simple  and  easy  process.  "  Sufficient  grace"  is  at  hand, 
and  all  that  is  required  is  "  the  mighty  exertion"  of  the  lapsed 
soul — as  Mr.  Foster  has  it.  This  process  may  indeed  go  so 
far  that  the  soul  will  lose  all  grace  by  freemen  t  abuse — but 
no  one  imagines  that  this  extremity  can  ordinarily  arrive 
short  of  some  half  dozen,  perhaps  more,  of  these  nps  and 
downs  in  the  religious  life  !  The  impression  which  such  facts 
make  upon  hundreds  of  worldly  men,  as  well  as  upon  the 
supposed  converts,  is  that  vital  religion  is  all  a  sham.  "  Min- 
isters have  told  us,"  say  these  converts,  "  that  we  had  expc- 
rienced  religion;  but  we  have  tried  it  and  found  it  a  cheat." 
And  just  as  surely  as  principles  will  to  a  greater  or  less  ex- 
tent, mould  and  influence  a  man's  conduct,  so  surely  does 
this  doctrinal  error  of  Arminianism  tend  strongly  and  neces- 
sarily to  such  results.  It  is  not  the  abuse  of  a  good  thing, 
but  the  natural  and  uniform  working  of  a  powerful  cause  pro- 
ducing these  disastrous  effects,  just  as  disease  produces  death. 
If  it  were  possible  to  obtain  minute  statistical  information 
of  the  state  of  things  in  the  most  prosperous  Methodist 
*  Soo  Cooke's  Ceuturies. 


190  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  X. 

churches,  the  statements  would  doubtless  be  fully  confirmed. 
Some  years  ago,  the  Rev.  Gr.  Coles  published  in  the  Christian 
Advocate  and  Journal  the  following  exhibit  of  the  Congre- 
gation of  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.  for  two  years  previous.  He 
says  the  number  of  members  in  his  church  at  first  was  about 
four  hundred: 

Moved  away  without  certificate,  and  otherwise  lost  from  the  classes,  48 
Probationers  dropped,        --------         29 

Members  expelled,         ---„-____     10 

Members  withdrawn,  --------  5 

Total,       -----------     92 

(1.)  Of  these  ninety-two,  be  it  observed,  forty-eight  either 
removed  without  certificate  (and  thus  are  out  of  the  church, 
being  excluded  from  other  circuits  by  the  Discipline),  or  are 
embraced  in  the  mysterious  designation,  "  lost  from  the 
classes!"  The  remaining  forty -four  were  "dropped"  as  un- 
promising, "  expelled"  as  unsavory,  or  withdrew  in  disgust. 
So  that,  as  Mr.  Coles  himself  testifies,  notwithstanding  the 
church  had  received  an  accession  of  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven  persons  from  other  circuits  and  on  probation,  and  there 
had  been  only  eighteen  deaths,  yet  the  whole  number  was 
less  by  just  seventeen,  than  two  years  previously,  at  the 
commencement  of  his  labors !  What  a  picture  is  this  !  One 
hundred  (nearly)  separated  from  the  institutions  of  religion, 
bearing  the  mark  of  disgrace !  Nearly  one-fourth  of  the 
whole  Methodist  host  (supposing  the  prosperity  of  the  church 
to  be  equally  great  elsewhere)  dismissed  under  the  stigma  of 
ecclesiastical  dishonor  every  two  years  ! 

(2.)  By  the  returns  in  1836,  they  reported  over  six  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  members,  which,  by  the  foregoing 
calculation,  would  give  upward  of  one  hundred  and  sixty 
thousand  excommunicants  every  two  years,  or  more  than 
eighty  thousand  annually!  Is  there  not  reason  to  fear  that 
the  light  which  so  shines  is  darkness  ? 

(3.)  So  also  a  writer  in  the  Southern  Christian  Advocate 
for  October,  1852,  says: 


Let.  X.         FALLING  FROM  GRACE.  191 

"  Being  allowed  to  peep  into  the  archives  of  an  old  and 
flourishing  church,  I  have  taken,  as  a  basis  for  the  following 
table,  four  revivals;"  and  the  writer  adds,  "I  was  in  every 
revival  myself."  He  then  states  :  "  Of  those  who  joined  our 
church,  204  in  number,  the  following  table  will  show  their 
ultimate  destiny: 

Males.  Females.  Total. 

Methodists, 24  64  88 

Backsliders,        - 45  13  53 

Presbyterians,                                                       2  11  10 

Bnptists,    -------4  4  8 

Episcopalians,        -----  1  1 

Moved  away,      ------3  30  33 

204 

The  writer  then  remarks  :  "  Here  we  have  of  171  original 
members,  only  88  remaining  and  living  and  dying  with  us, 
58  gone  back  to  the  world,  and  25  joined  other  communions 
Of  the  33  who  moved  away,  and  were  lost  sight  of,  I  fear  not 
a  moiety  ever  joined  any  church,  much  less  remained  in  ours. 
So  from  this  showing,  not  half  of  the  fruits  of  our  revivals  are 
saved  to  the  church." 

u  The  influence  of  the  doctrine  of  certain  perseverance,  we 
are  told,  is  similar  to  that  of  Universalism."  But  it  is  a 
well  known  fact  that  in  whatever  district  of  country  Method- 
ist Episcopacy  has  been  left  to  work  out  her  system  apart 
from  the  restraints,  supports,  and  other  modifying  influences 
of  other  denominations,  especially  of  Calvinistic  bodies,  there 
infidelity  prevails  to  a  fearful  extent,  especially  among  the 
better  educated  and  more  influential  classes ;  and  Arminian- 
ism  produces  its  legitimate  fruits,  viz.  spiritual  lethargy  and 
other  premonitory  symptoms  of  death.  So  also  in  certain 
sections  where  Unitarianism  has  prevailed,  associated  as  it 
generally  is  with  Universalism  —  very  rarely  have  any  lost 
their  Calvinism  without  using  Arminianism  as  a  stepping- 
stone  to  those  worse  errors.  Ordinarily  they  have  made  Ar- 
minianism the  half  way  house  in  attaining  the  lower  deep  of 


192  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XL 

Socinianism  and  Universalism.  It  is  the  testimony  of  Rev. 
Parsons  Cooke,  pastor  of  Lynn  Congregational  church,  Mass. 
that  "  the  Methodist  ministry  promotes  Universalism  much 
faster  than  a  Universalist  ministry  can,"  and  that  "  few  con- 
verts are  gained  by  Universalists,  except  of  those  who  have 
gone  through  a  spurious  Methodist  conversion."  Hundreds 
in  many  parts  of  our  country  will  testify  that  "  this  witness 
is  true."  As  to  skepticism  or  infidelity,  the  Methodist 
Quarterly  Review  (for  1848,  p.  495)  concedes  that  "  Calvin- 
ism has  no  '  direct  tendency  to  such  a  result/  though  it  has 
been  charged  by  Arminian  champions  with  Atheism  as  a 
necessary  consequence."     This  is  the  language  of  a  decided 

Arminian,  but  of  a  man  of  enlightened  views — and  of  course 

he  opposite  of  Foster  on  Calvinism. 


LETTER    XI. 

JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH.— IMPUTED  RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

Rev.  Sir — Very  intimately  associated  with  the  doctrine  of 
Atonement,  is  that  of  Justification  by  the  righteousness  of 
Christ — the  doctrine,  as  Luther  well  called  it,  of  "  a  rising 
or  falling  church." 

V.  The  Difficulties  of  Arminian   Methodism   on 

THE     SUBJECT     OF    JUSTIFICATION     AND     IMPUTED     RIGHT- 
EOUSNESS. 

If  a  man  be,  as  even  Arminians  maintain,  a  hopelessly 
fallen,  depraved  and  ruined  creature,  "how  can  he  be  just 
with  God  ?"  The  answer  which  all  enlightened  Christians 
give,  is,  "  by  the  righteousness,  the  active  and  passive 
obedience  of  Christ."  His  "  passive  obedience,"  or  his 
sufferings,  were  necessary  to  satisfy  the  penal  demands  of  the 
law,  and  release  the  believer  from  its  sentence  of  condemna- 


Let.  XI.  IMPUTED   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  193 

tioii :  his  "active  obedience"  was  to  meet  the  requisitions  of 
the  same  perfect  law,  viz.  "do  this  and  live."  To  be  re- 
leased from  a  righteous  sentence  pronounced  by  a  law  which 
we  have  broken,  is  one  thing — to  be  accepted  in  the  Beloved, 
and  treated  at  the  final  judgment  as  having  fulfilled  all 
required  obedience,  is  obviously  another.  Christ  owed  no 
life-long  obedience  to  his  own  law  for  himself,  but  he  ren- 
dered it  as  really  as  his  sufferings  and  death,  in  the  character 
of  the  Surety  and  Substitute  of  his  people.  Thus  says  Paul, 
"  By  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous," 
£.  e.  justified,  pardoned  and  accepted  before  God. 

To  illustrate  the  necessity  of  this  two-fold  obedience,  look 
at  the  case  of  Adam.  Arminians  concede  that  he  was  under 
a  covenant  of  works,  the  terms  of  which  were,  "  Do  this  and 
live."  Here  was  a  righteousness  required.  When  Adam 
broke  the  covenant,  this  righteousness  was  of  course  unful- 
filled. Suppose  the  penalty  of  his  transgression  be  remitted, 
still  the  demands  of  the  law  for  active  righteousness  in  order 
to  life,  remain  unsatisfied ;  man  must  obey,  otherwise  he 
cannot  gain  the  reward  of  his  obedience,  viz.  life.  His  sin 
may  be  conceived  to  be  pardoned,  but  still,  though  he 
escapes  the  penalty,  he  does  not  possess  any  title  to  the  reward 
of  the  covenant,  viz.  life.  Thus  when  Christ,  as  our  Substi- 
stute,  undertook  our  case,  it  was  indispensably  necessary  that 
he  should  act  in  our  room  and  stead,  in  both  these  capacities. 
So  he  "magnified  the  law  and  made  it  honorable."  This 
"  perfect  righteousness  "  is  imputed,  or  reckoned  to  the  ac- 
count of  every  true  believer,  and  this  is  all  the  meritoi-ious 
obedience  he  ever  has  or  ever  can  have. 

With  this  statement  agrees  Goodwin,  quoted  and  approved 
by  Watson :  "  If  we  take  the  phrase  of  imputing  Christ's 
righteousness,  including  his  obedience  as  well  passive  as 
active,  in  the  return  of  it,  i.  e.  in  the  privileges,  blessings 
and  benefits  purchased  by  it;  so  a  believer  may  be  said  to 
be  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed,  L  e.  God 
17 


194  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XT. 

justifies  a  believer  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  righteousness,  not 
for  any  righteousness  of  his  own."*  In  other  words,  his 
perfect  obedience  unto  death  not  only  pays  the  penalty  of  the 
violated  law,  but  performs  the  meritorious  conditions  of  the 
broken  covenant,  "  Do,  and  live."  Thus  man  is  not  only 
pardoned,  but  accepted  and  admitted  to  favor  and  friendship, 
which  is  a  very  different  thing  from  mere  pardon.  The  felon 
may  be  pardoned  by  the  act  of  the  Executive,  but  restoration 
to  the  favor,  the  good  standing  and  social  privileges  of  the 
community,  must  be  the  reward  of  protracted  good  behavior, 
or  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  Of  the  same  sort  were 
the  two-fold  necessities  of  man's  fallen  state.  And  such  too 
was  the  two-fold  character  of  "  the  righteousness  of  Christ " 
rendered  in  the  room  of  the  guilty,  and  accounted  to  them  in 
its  benefits  and  blessings. 

In  agreement  with  this  scriptural  view  of  Justification,  hear 
Mr.  "Wesley :  "  As  the  active  and  passive  righteousness  of 
Christ  were  never  in  fact  separated,  so  we  never  need  separate 
them  at  all."  He  adds  :  "  It  is  with  regard  to  both  these, 
conjointly,  that  Jesus  is  called  the  '  Lord  our  righteousness.' " 
Again:  "  In  what  sense  is  this  righteousness  imputed  to 
believers?  In  this — all  believers  are  forgiven  and  accepted, 
not  for  the  sake  of  any  thing  in  them,  or  of  any  thing  that 
ever  was,  that  is,  or  ever  can  be  done  by  them,  but  wholly  for 
the  sake  of  what  Christ  has  done  and  suffered  for  them.""}" 
Thus,  in  the  words  of  our  Catechism,  "  Justification  is  an  act 
of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sin,  and 
accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight ;  only  for  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone." 

The  great  difficulty  is,  to  reconcile  these  very  correct  and 
explicit  statements  of  the  grand  doctrine  of  "  imputed  right- 
eousness," with  other  statements  of  a  very  different  sort  from 
Arminian  sources.     Thus  Watson  :   "  It  is  established  by  the 

*  Institutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  225. 

f  Sermon  on  "  The  Lord  our  Righteousness." 


Let.  XI.  IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS. 


195 


New  Testament,  that  justification,  pardon  and  remission  of 
sins,  the  non-imputation  of  sin  and  the  imputation  of  right- 
eousness, are  phrases  of  the  same  import."*  But  this  not  only 
flatly  contradicts  the  statements  before  quoted,  but  is  the 
same  as  to  say,  that  to  pardon  the  convicted  thief  and  release 
him  from  prison,  is  the  same  as  to  accept  him  to  all  the  priv- 
ileges of  honest  men,  and  receive  him  with  all  respect  in 
good  society  !  These  blessings  of  pardon  and  acceptance  are 
always,  in  the  case  of  the  Christian,  fouud  conjointly,  as 
Wesley  says,  but  it  is  obviously  proper  to  consider  them  in 
this  distinct  manner,  just  as  we  contemplate  the  attributes  of 
God  separately,  in  order  to  aid  our  feeble  comprehension. 

Similar  inconsistency  appears  in  Mr.  Wesley's  views  of  this 
great  fundamental  doctrine.  No  Calvinist,  for  example,  wishes 
for   more  express  and  clear  statements  than  these:  "Christ 
is  termed  '  The  Lord  our  Righteousness,'  and  the  plain, 
indisputable  meaning  is,  He  shall  be  what  he  is  called,  the 
sole  purchaser,  the  sole  meritorious  cause,  both  of  our  justifi- 
cation  and  sanctification."     "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law, 
*    *    *    the  law  of  works,    *    *    *  for  righteousness  to  every 
one  that  believeth  in  him,    *    *   *    to  the  end  that,  though 
he  hath  not  kept  and  cannot  keep  that  law,  he  may  be  both 
accounted  and  made  righteous."     Still  Mr.  W.  in  the   same 
tract,  says:  "'The  righteousness  of  Christ'  is  an  expression 
1  do  not  find  in  the  Bible ;"  but  he  adds,  "  when  Paul  says 
(Rom.  5  :  18),  "By  the  righteousness  of  one  (in  the  follow- 
in"-  verse,  'the  obedience  of  one,  his  obedience  unto  death,' 
his  dying  for  us),  does  not  Paul  mean  '  the  righteousness  of 
Christ?'"      Mr.   Wesley  answers,    "undoubtedly  he  does!" 
Still,  being  altogether  more  cautious  than  the  inspired  Apostle, 
he  says :   "  We  are  all  agreed  as  to  the  meaning,  but  not  as  to 
the  expression,  "the  imputing  the  righteousness  of  Christ  !"f 
But  can  any  Arminian  tell  how  this  phrase  differs  from    his 
own  Article  IX. — "  We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God, 
*  Institutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  212.  f  Doct-  Tracts,  p.  208. 


196  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XI. 

only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  ?" 
Now,  how  are  we  to  obtain  that  merit  or  righteousness  except 
by  its  being  imputed  or  reckoned  to  us  ?     No  one  can  tell. 

But  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  Arminian  brethren  say  they  are 
afraid  of  the  phrase,  "  imputing  the  righteousness  of  Christ," 
because  it  tends  naturally  to  make  Christ  the  minister  of  sin." 
This,  if  it  had  any  rational  foundation  in  truth,  would  be  a 
most  formidable  objection.  How  do  they  reach  such  a  con- 
clusion ?  "  For,"  they  say,  "  if  the  very  personal  obedience  (or 
righteousness)  of  Christ  (as  those  expressions  directly  lead 
me  to  think),  be  mine  the  moment  I  believe,  *  *  *  can  my 
obeying  God  add  any  value  to  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ? 
On  this  scheme,"  they  add,  "  are  not  the  holy  and  the  unholy 
on  the  very  same  footing  ?"  But  as  they  themselves  admit 
this  to  be  only  a  dreadfid  abuse  of  the  Antinomians,  "  to 
justify  the  grossest  abominations,"*  such  reasoning  will  not 
weigh  much  with  any  well  instructed  Christian,  who  has 
been  taught  to  regard  this  as  one  of  the  sweetest  forms  in 
which  the  Spirit  of  God  hath  revealed  the  "  righteousness  of 
ONE,"  that  is  Christ,  "the  Lord  our  righteousness." 

And  why  do  Arminians  object  to  the  phrase,  "imputed 
righteousness  ?"  They  say,  it  is  because  their  "  obeying  God 
can  add  no  value  to  Christ's  perfect  personal  righteousness  !" 
Did  such  a  conception  ever  enter  the  mind  of  any  true  Chris- 
tian, viz.  that  he  ought  to  wish  or  desire  a  kind  of  justification 
to  which  he  could  add  value  by  his  own  obedience  !  Do 
Arminians  mean  to  say  that  in  regard  to  an  increase  of  the 
"VALUE  of  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ,  the  "  holy  and 
unholy  are  not  on  the  very  same  footing  ?"  Will  Bishop 
Simpson,  and  all  the  other  bishops,  jointly  or  severally,  in- 
form the  Christian  world  on  this  topic!  Let  them  tell  us 
how  much  value  the  obedience  of  any  holy  man  can  add  to 
the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ."  And  whether  an  unholy 
man  has  any  less  power  to  add  to  its  value  ? 
*  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  209. 


Let.  XI.  IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  197 

But  whilst  no  Calvinist  could  ever  have  conceived  the  idea 
of  his  own  works,  or  the  works  of  any  holy  or  unholy  man, 
"  adding  to  the  value  of  Christ's  ohedience,"  still  "  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,"  or  may  do,  have  a  very 
important  and  significant  relation  to  the  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion. When  Mr.  Wesley  quotes  our  Lord  :  "  Labor  *  * 
for  the  meat  that  endureth  to  everlasting  life,"  Mr.  Fletcher, 
in  his  first  "  Check  to  Antinomianism,"  says  :  "  He  strikes 
at  a  fatal  mistake  *  *  *  of  many  honest  Calvinists,  and 
not  a  few  Anuinians  who  are  Calvinists  in  practice."  This 
"  fatal  mistake"  he  describes  thus :  "  When  they  see  that 
man  is  by  nature  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  they  lie  easy 
in  the  mire  of  iniquity,  idly  waiting  till  by  an  irresistible  act 
of  omnipotence,  God  pulls  them  out  without  any  striving  on 
their  part." 

So  far  as  Mr.  Fletcher  speaks  of  Arminians  in  this  state- 
ment, we  may  admit  him  to  be  competent  testimony;  but  all 
"  honest  Calvinists"  will  feel  that  he  is  "  bearing  false  witness 
against  his  neighbors."  They  firmly  believe  and  constantly 
teach,  that  "good  works  done  in  obedience  to  God's  com- 
mandments are  the  fruits  and  evidences  of  a  true  and  lively 
faith ;  that  their  ability  to  perform  such  works  is  not  at  all 
of  themselves,  but  wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  *  *  * 
who  works  in  them  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure. 
Yet  are  they  not  hereupon  to  grow  negligent,  as  if  they  were 
not  bound  to  perform  any  duty  unless  upon  a  special  motion 
of  the  Spirit;  but  they  ought  to  be  diligent  in  stirring  up  the 
grace  of  God  that  is  in  them."  *  These  things  honest  Cal- 
vinists do,  not  to  add  value  to  the  perfect  obedience  of  their 
Saviour.  This  they  would  regard  as  a  species  of  blasphemy. 
But  believing  when  they  have  done  all,  that  they  are  "  un- 
profitable servants,"  they  acknowledge  their  best  services 
"  have  no  merit,  but  must  be  accepted  only  through  Christ." 

And  strange  as  it  may  seem,  Mr.  Fletcher  quotes  Wesley 
*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  10. 

17* 


198  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XL 

in  terms  of  the  very  same  import,  as  follows  :  "I  always  did 
clearly  assert  the  total  fall  of  man  and  his  utter  inability  to 
do  any  good  of  himself;  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  grace 
and  Spirit  of  God,  to  raise  even  a  good  thought  or  desire  in 
our  hearts;  the  Lord  reivarding  no  works  and  accepting  of 
none,  but  so  far  as  they  proceed  from  his  preventing,  con- 
vincing and  converting  grace  through  the  Beloved :  the  blood 
and  righteousness  of  Christ  being  the  sole  meritorious  cause 
of  our  salvation."  *  There  is  nothing  here  that  looks  like 
adding  to  the  value  of  the  obedience  (or  righteousness)  of 
Christ. 

Many  of  the  gross  misstatements  made  by  Arminians  in 
discussing  with  Calvinists  the  merits  of  Christ  and  their  im- 
putation to  believers,  arise  from  their  supposing  us  to  teach  a 
transfer  of  moral  character.  Thus  Dr.  Clarke,  in  comment- 
ing on  2  Cor.  5  :  21,  "He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us," 
&c.  says :  "  This  text  has  been  made  the  foundation  of  a 
most  blasphemous  doctrine,  viz.  that  our  sins  were  imputed  to 
Christ,  and  that  he  was  a  proper  object  of  the  indignation  of 
Divine  justice,  because  he  was  blackened  with  imputed  sin; 
*  *  *  that  Christ  may  be  considered  as  the  greatest  of 
sinners,  because  all  the  sins  of  mankind  were  imputed  to 
him."  But  as  no  Calvinist  supposes  that  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  gives  to  the  believer  a  moral  purity 
equal  to  that  of  the  Saviour,  so  no  Calvinist  teaches  that 
Christ  became  impure,  or  was  morally  blackened  by  "  bear- 
ing our  sins." 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  account  for  Dr.  Clarke's  errors  in  an- 
other parallel  instance.  In  speaking  of  our  Lord's  agony  in 
the  garden  (Luke  22  :  43,  44),  he  says :  "  Some  think  it  was 
occasioned  by  the  Divine  wrath  pressing  in  upon  him,  for 
as  he  was  bearing  the  sin  of  the  world,  God  looked  on  and 
treated  him  as  if  he  were  a  sinner."  "There  is  something," 
he  says,  "  very  shocking  in  this  supposition,  and  yet  it  is  truly 
*  First  Chock. 


Lbt.  XI  IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  199 

astonishing  how  general  it  is."  If  it  be  replied,  that  Christ 
himself  complains  while  hanging  on  the  cross,  "  Why  hast 
thou  (God  the  Father)  forsaken  me?"  Dr.  Clarke  tries  to 
evade  the  force  of  this  text,  by  supposing  it  merely  to  mean, 
"to  what  sort  of  persons  hast  thou  left  me?"  Or,  "how 
astonishing  the  wickedness  of  those  persons  into  whose  hands 
I  have  fallen  !" 

But  let  us  see  whether  Dr.  Clarke  himself  does  not  hold  to 
" the  very  shocking  supposition"  of  "the  Divine  wrath  press- 
ing upon  our  Lord."  On  the  next  page  he  informs  us : 
"Christ  was  now  suffering,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he 
might  bring  us  to  God :  that  he  was  bearing  in  his  body  the 
punishment  due  to  their  sins,  I  have  no  doubt;  and  that  the 
agony  of  his  mind  in  these  vicarious  sufferings  caused  the 
bloody  sweat,"  &c.  Now  how  could  our  Lord  "bear  the 
punishment  due  to  sin,"  without  bearing  the  "Divine  wrath?" 
Is  not  God  "angry  with  the  wicked" — "does  he  not  hate 
all  workers  of  iniquity" — "is  not  the  wages  of  sin  death" — 
and  can  there  be  this  curse  of  the  Divine  law  and  yet  no 
"wrath  of  God?"  So,  in  commenting  on  Gen.  3  :  24,  "He 
drave  out  the  man,"  Dr.  C.  says :  "  God's  displeasure  against 
sinful  man  is  to  be  noted."  Yet  he  rejects  the  supposition 
"  that  Christ  was  at  all  under  the  displeasure  of  his  heavenly 
Father,"  in  "bearing  the  punishment  of  sin!"  And  he 
further  says  that  our  Lord  endured  the  "  utmost  anguish  and 
grief  of  soid,"  which  were  "produced  by  a  supernatural 
cause"  (Com.  Matt.  22  :44);  and  "that  it  was  an  unprece- 
dented and  indescribable  agony"  (Matt.  26:38);  "most 
overwhelming  anguish,  the  most  extreme  which  the  soul  can 
feel ;  excruciating  torture  of  spirit."  All  this  was  the  pun- 
ishment due  to  sin,  yet  there  was  "  no  displeasure  of  God  ?" 

So  also,  when  Paul  says,  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us,"  how  could 
he  be  under  the  Divine  curse,  if  not  under  "  Divine  wrath  ?" 
Isaiah,  too,  declares,   "The  Lord  laid  (caused  to   meet)  on 


200  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XL 

him  the  iniquity  of  us  all,"  and  Dr.  Clarke  explains  thus : 
"  He  was  the  subject  on  which  all  the  rays  collected  on  the 
focal  point  fell.  These  fiery  rays,"  he  adds,  "which  should 
have  fallen  on  all  mankind,  diverged  from  Divine  Justice 
*  *  *  and  converged  on  him.  So  the  Lord  caused  to 
meet  on  him  the  'punishment  due  to  the  iniquities  of  all." 
Now  if  this  do  not  amount  to  "  the  Divine  wrath  pressing 
upon"  the  glorious  Sufferer,  what  terms  would  convey  that 
meaning  ?  We  cannot  even  plausibly  account  for  these 
strange  contradictions  of  Dr.  Clarke,  except  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  he  thought  he  was  combating  what  he  regards  as 
the  Calvinistic  idea  of  a  transfer  of  moral  character;  i.  c. 
that  Christ  was  personally  defiled,  or  made  personally  impure, 
by  the  imputation  of  man's  sin  !  This  absurdity  has  been 
often  charged,  but  never  proved  against  Calvinists.  Here 
New  School  Presbyterians  and  Methodists  make  common 
cause  in  their  assaults  upon  our  doctrines. 

By  what  authority  then  do  Fletcher  and  other  Arminiang 
charge  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness  with 
encouraging  men  "  to  lie  easy  in  the  mire  of  iniquity  ?" 
Nothing  but  the  grossest  abuse  of  our  views  and  perversion 
of  their  obvious  import,  could  lead  to  such  a  result.  "Faith 
receives  and  rests  on  Christ  and  his  righteousness,  and  is  the 
alone  instrument  of  justification."  But  it  is  immediately 
added:  "It  is  not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is  ever 
accompanied  with  all  other  saving  graces,  and  is  no  dead 
faith,  but  worketh  by  love."  *  Of  course,  if  any  one  finds 
his  faith  inducing  him  to  "lie  easy  in  the  mire  of  iniquity," 
he  thus  demonstrates  that  he  has  no  true  and  living  faith,  but 
is  a  self-deceiver.  And  just  so  far  as  any  genuine  believer  ever 
realized  such  indulgence  to  sin  in  his  life,  he  proves  himself 
"a  backslider  in  heart,"  and  obscures  any  evidence  he  may 
ever  have  possessed  that  he  is  "  born  of  Grod."  In  such  cir- 
cumstances, his  confidence  in  his  good  estate  is  mere  pre- 
*  Confession,  chap.  11. 


Let.  XL  IMPUTED   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  201 

sumption — a  dangerous  delusion.  Nor  does  it  follow  that 
God  regards  such  backsliders  (say  David)  as  "all  fair  and 
undefiled,"  while  they  wallow  in  the  adulterer's  mire  and  the 
murderer's  gore."  *  On  the  contrary,  the  Scriptures  ex- 
pressly teach,  that  the  Divine  displeasure  was  kindled  against 
I  ►avid,  on  more  than  one  such  occasion ;  nor  were  his  crimes 
less  hateful  in  the  sight  of  Infinite  Purity,  because  commit- 
ted by  a  justified  person  ;  but  rather  much  more  abominable. 

But  when  we  inquire  whether  David,  by  those  crimes, 
ceased  to  have  any  interest  in  the  justifying  grace  of  God — 
whether  all  his  sins  which  had  been  pardoned,  were  again 
laid  to  his  charge,  and  his  Saviour's  merits,  sufferings,  right- 
eousness and  intercession  no  longer  availed  for  him  before 
the  throne — in  a  word,  whether  he  ceased  to  be  a  regenerate 
person,  and  became  "  a  child  of  the  devil,"  until  he  was 
again  "born  of  the  Spirit,"  &c.  the  question  is  one  that  must 
be  decided  on  different  grounds.  Calvinists  believe,  that 
though  God  "  visited  his  iniquity  with  stripes  and  his  trans- 
gressions with  the  rod,  yet  his  loving  kindness  did  he  not  ut- 
terly take  from  him,  nor  suffer  his  faithfulness  to  fail."  Psalm 
89  :  33.  We  admit  that  if  David  had  died  with  those  dread- 
fid  crimes  unrepented  of,  he  must  have  perished — but  the 
same  ''loving  kindness"  made  such  a  result  impossible,  pro- 
longed his  life  and  brought  him  to  repentance,  and  reconcil- 
iation with  God.  And  all  this,  without  the  shadow  of  merit 
on  the  part  of  the  guilty  king. 

Nor  is  the  error  of  Fletcher  less  obvious  to  Calvinists  in 
such  passages  as  the  following :  "Let  your  light  so  shine  be- 
fore men,  that  they  may  see  your  good  works  (i.  e.  your  filthy 
rags  and  dung).  "We  are  created  in  Christ  Jesus  to  good 
works,"  i.  e.  to  filthy  rags.  "  Provoke  one  another  to  love  and 
good  works,"  i.  e.  to  dross  and  filthy  rags,  &c.  &c.  But  the 
extreme  weakness  and  folly  of  this  sort  of  argument  is  too 
plain  to  need  any  extended  exposure.  If  "  good  works"  be 
*  Fletcher's  Fourth  Chock. 


202  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XI. 

viewed  merely  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  pardon  and  justi- 
fication, every  Calvinist  will  cheerfully  adopt  such  statements 
as  his  own.  In  this  sense  they  are  nothing  but  "  filthy  rags." 
But  as  the  gracious  " fruits  of  the  Spirit,"  the  evidences  of 
the  new  birth,  and  the  ornaments  of  the  Christian  life,  good 
works  cannot  be  too  highly  prized  nor  too  diligently  culti- 
vated. To  take  the  place  of  Christ's  merits,  or  to  supply  any 
supposed  deficiency  therein,  every  Christian  will  esteem  his 
own  virtues  as  "  dung,"  "  dross,"  "  filthy  rags."  And  this 
view  is  adopted  by  both  Wesley  and  Fletcher,  viz.  "  that  the 
blood  and  righteousness  of  Christ  are  the  sole  meritorious 
cause- of  our  salvation."*  Thus  the  blow  by  which  Fletcher 
aimed  to  overturn  Calvinism,  recoils  upon  himself,  demolishes 
his  own  system  ! 

It  is  difficult,  moreover,  to  harmonize  such  extracts  as  that 
last  given,  with  other  expressions  from  the  same  source. 
Thus  in  the  Minutes  of  Conference  in  1770,  Mr.  Wesley 
writes  as  follows  on  the  subject  of  " merit  and  good  works:" 
"As  to  merit  itself,  of  which  we  have  been  so  dreadfully 
afraid:  we  are  rewarded  according  to  our  works;  yea,  be- 
cause of  our  works.  How  does  this  differ  from  'for  the  sake 
of  our  ivories?'  And  how  differs  this  from  secundum  merita 
operum — as  our  works  deserve!  Can  you  split  this  hair? 
I  doubt  I  cannot."  But  this  is  unmitigated  Arminianism, 
or  rather  Pelagianism. 

What  were  Mr.  Wesley's  precise  views  of  the  nature  of 
Christ's  active  obedience  or  righteousness  in  behalf  of  the 
sinner,  is  not  apparent.  In  the  first  volume  of  his  miscella- 
neous works,  when  as  yet  we  may  suppose  he  had  not  ma- 
tured his  system,  he  speaks  of  Christ's  "  satisfaction  of  God's 
justice,  by  the  offering  his  body,  &c.  and  fulfilling  the  law  of 
God  perfectly."  And  again:  "Christ  therefore  is  now  the 
righteousness  of  all  them  that  truly  believe.  He  paid  for 
them  the  ransom  by  his  death.  He  for  them  fulfilled  the  law 
*  First  Check,  p.  19. 


Let.  XI.  IMPUTED   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  203 

in  his  life.  So  that  now  in  him,  every  believer  ma}'  be  called 
afulfdler  of  the  law."  By  such  language  as  this,  when  we 
compare  it  with  other  statements  from  the  same  pen,  we  are 
at  a  loss  to  know  what  is  intended.  For  example,  when  we 
open  the  third  volume  of  his  miscellaneous  works,  we  find 
him  replying  to  Mr.  Hervey  in  the  following  manner:  "If 
he  was  our  substitute  as  to  penal  suffering,"  remarks  Hervey, 
"why  not  as  to  justifying  obedience?"  "The  former,"  an- 
swers Wesley,  "  is  expressly  asserted  in  Scripture.  The 
latter  is  not,"  &c.  Here  he  admits  a  kind  of  substitution  as 
to  penal  sufferings,  very  much  in  the  same  manner  that  some 
New  School  men  speak  of  Christ  as  our  substitute ;  that  is, 
his  sufferings  were  a  substitute  for  the  execution  of  the  legal 
penalty;  a  display  for  governmental  purposes;  an  opening  of 
the  way  of  pardon  and  acceptance;  according  to  which,  aa 
Wesley  asserts  it,  "  we  are  rewarded  as  our  works  deserve." 
That  this  is  his  meaning,  appears  as  follows :  Mr.  Hervey 
remarks,  "In  order  to  entitle  us  to  a  reward,  there  must  be 
an  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness."  Wesley  replies, 
"  There  must  be  an  interest  in  Christ.  And  then  every  man 
shall  receive  his  own  reward  according  to  his  oicn  labor."  Mr. 
Hervey  introduces  an  objector  as  saying,  "If  Christ's  perfect 
obedience  be  ours,  we  have  no  more  need  of  pardon  than 
Christ  himself" — a  stale  quibble,  as  old  at  least,  as  Socinus, 
the  father  of  Unitarianism.  To  which  Wesley  replies,  "  The 
consequence  is  good.  You  have  started  an  objection  which 
you  cannot  answer  !"  "Both  the  branches  of  the  law,"  says 
Mr.  Hervey,  "the  p.eceptive  and  the  penal,  in  the  case  of 
guilt  contracted,  must  be  satisfied."  "Not  so,"  replies  Wes- 
ley. "  Christ,  by  his  death  alone,  fully  satisfied  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world."  "  The  cure  of  sin,"  says  Hervey,  "  will 
be  perfected  in  heaven."  "Nay,  surely,"  adds  Wesley,  "in 
paradise,  if  not  sooner!''  Is  this  the  doctrine  of  an  Armin- 
ian  purgatory,  "  to  cure  sin  ?"  What  else  can  it  mean  ? 
This    interpretation    is    confirmed   by  what   follows :  "  This 


204  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

freedom  from  sin,"  adds  Hervey,  "  is  a  noble  prerogative  of 
the  beatific  vision."  "No,"  replies  Wesley,  "it  would  then 
come  too  late.  If  sin  remains  in  us  till  the  day  of  judgment, 
it  will  remain  forever."  Sin,  it  seems,  may  remain  in  us  till 
we  get  to  paradise  [or  purgatory],  but  no  longer  :  then,  "  if 
not  sooner,"  it  must  be  cured!  A  good  old  Popish  way  of 
salvation,  which  might  have  been  traveled  to  heaven  safely, 
for  aught  that  appears,  without  any  atonement. 


LETTER   XII. 

SINLESS    PERFECTION. 

Rev.  Sir — The  discussion  of  what  you  are  pleased  to  call 
"  Christian  Perfection,"  i.  e.  the  entire  freedom  of  many 
Christians  from  all  sin,  in  thought,  word  and  deed,  for  years 
prior  to  the  great  change  of  death,  introduces  some  of  the 
more  practical  features  of  your  scheme  of  religion. 

Wesley,  it  is  worthy  to  be  premised,  traces  this  unscrip- 
tural  sentiment  as  far  back  at  least  as  Pelagius,  in  the  fourth 
century.  "  I  verily  believe,"  he  says,  "  the  real  heresy  of 
Pelagius  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  this,  the  holding 
that  Christians  may,  by  the  grace  of  God,  go  on  to  perfection." 
And  lest  such  suspicious  ancestry  should  bring  the  doctrine 
into  disrepute,  he  adds  of  Pelagius,  "  I  would  not  affirm  that 
he  was  not  one  of  the  holiest  men  of  the  age."  * 

But  Mr.  Wesley  might  have  commenced  the  genealogy  of 
Perfectionism  at  a  much  earlier  period.  "  In  most  of  the 
false  religions  of  the  world,  the  doctrine  of  human  perfection, 

*  Of  Pelagius  we  learn  from  the  best  authorities  that  he  "  denied  original 
sin,  maintained  man's  plenary  ability,  the  moral  purity  of  infants,  justifica- 
tion by  our  own  righteousness,"  with  some  other  unscriptural  tenets.  And 
yet  of  this  heretic,  Wesley  says,  "I  guess  he  was  both  a  wise  and  a  holy 
man."  "A  fellow-feeling  makes  us  wondrous  kind."  Serm.  vol.  ii.  p.  323. 
Misc.  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  259. 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  205 

manifested  in  some  favored  instances,  has,  if  we  mistake  not, 
formed  an  essential  article  of  belief.  A  kind  of  perfection 
has  been  claimed  for  Greek  and  Roman  sages,  for  Hindoo 
devotees  and  for  Mohainmedan  saints.  Pantheism,  the  philo- 
sophical basis  of  most  of  the  popular  systems  of  idolatry, 
assumes  as  a  fundamental  position,  such  a  union  of  man  to 
the  Deity  as  constitutes  the  leading  principle  of  modern  Per- 
fectionism. This  Pantheism  is  supposed  by  many  to  date 
farther  back  than  the  universal  deluge.  The  Gnostics  of 
primitive  times,  the  New  Platonists  of  Egypt,  the  brethren 
and  sisters  of  the  Free  Spirit  at  a  later  day,  the  primitive 
Quakers,  the  French  Prophets,  the  Shakers,  and  all  the  great 
body  of  the  Mystics,  were  all  strenuous  advocates  of  Perfec- 
tionism.* Let  us  inquire  into  the  theological  relations  of  this 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  so  many  forms  of  both  ancient 
and  modern  error. 

VI.     The  Difficulties  of  Arminian  Methodism,  in 

REFERENCE  TO  "  SlNLESS  PERFECTION." 

We  shall  be  met  at  the  threshold  of  this  discussion  with  a 
stout  denial  that  this  is  a  doctrinal  feature  of  modern  Meth- 
odism. It  is  a  matter  both  of  surprise  and  regret,  that  the 
advocates  of  the  system  should  seem  to  expose  themselves 
to  the  charge  of  a  want  of  candor  in  the  occasional  debates 
which  take  place  upon  this  question.  Would  it  ever  be  im- 
agined by  an  honest,  upright,  conscientious  man,  that  when 
it  is  so  often  and  so  vehemently  denied  that  Methodists 
maintain  the  doctrine  of  "  Sinless  Perfection,"  all  that  is 
meant  is,  that  they  reject  the  phraseology,  the  words,  not 
that  they  do  not  hold  and  teach  the  sentiment  ?  Yet  that 
this  is  the  simple  verity,  is  proved  by  a  reference  to  their 
standard  authors.  Thus  :  "  We  are  all  agreed  that  we  may 
be  saved  from  all  sin  before  death  ;  i.  e.  from  all  sinful  tem- 
pers and  desires."  "  Grown  Christians  are  in  such  a  sense 
*  Biblical  Repertory,  July,  1842. 
18 


206  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

perfect  as  to  be  freed  from  evil  tempers  and  desires.  Every 
one  of  these  can  say,  I  am  crucified  with  Christ,  nevertheless 
I  live,  &c. ;  words  that  manifestly  describe  a  deliverance  from 
inward  as  well  as  from  outward  sin."  Doct.  Tracts,  pp.  293, 
296.  These  extracts  are  made  from  a  volume  which,  as  we 
are  told  in  the  advertisement,  was  originally  bound  and  pub- 
lished with  the  Form  of  Discipline,  and  is  now  "stereotyped," 
for  the  benefit  of  the  church.  Many  parallel  passages  might 
be  added,  from  the  sermons  of  Wesley  and  others,  but  these 
will  enable  us  to  understand  what  is  meant  when  "  sinless 
perfection  "  is  disclaimed  with  so  much  vehemence. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Wesley,  as  White- 
field  tells  us,  "  thought  meanly  of  Abraham,  though  eminently 
'  the  friend  of  God/  and  of  David,  the  man  after  Grod's  own 
heart."  Much  less  that  he  affirmed,  as  we  learn  from  the 
same  testimony,  "  that  no  Baptist  or  Presbyterian  writer  he 
had  ever  read,  knew  any  thing  of  the  liberties  of  Christ !" 
"What,"  replies  Whitefield,  "neither  Bunyan,  Henry,  Fla- 
vel,  Halyburton,  nor  any  of  the  New  England  and  Scotch 
divines  ?  See,  my  dear  sir,"  adds  Whitefield,  "  what  narrow- 
spiritedness  and  want  of  charity  arise  from  your  principles. 
Do  not,  henceforth,  say  aught  against  election,  as  destructive 
of  meekness  and  love." 

Perhaps  no  publication  (if  we  except  the  writings  of  the 
first  apostle  of  Methodism,)  is  more  popular  among  modern 
Arminians,  than  the  labored  and  superficial  work  of  Fletcher, 
which  he  entitles,  "Checks  to  Antinomianism  •"  the  object 
of  which  is  to  cry  down  Calvinism  by  an  unpopular  epithet. 
It  is  a  fact,  strictly  analogous  to  past  experience  of  human 
weakness  and  fallibility,  that  those  who  urge  this  unfounded 
charge  of  Antinomian  tendencies,  are  themselves  most  guilty. 
This  truth  is  aptly  illustrated  in  the  doctrine  under  review. 
It  is  not  that  these  perfectionists  imagine  they  live  without 
transgressing  the  "  moral  law,"  but  they  regard  it  as  no  longer 
in  force.     Christians  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace; 


Lkt.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  207 

tinder  a  milder  code  of  legislative  requirement  than  the  Dec- 
alogue ;  a  form  of  obligation  suited  to  man's  impaired  ability ; 
brought  down  to  his  capacity  as  a  fallen  creature,  and  to 
which  he  may  and  can  yield  a  perfect  obedience,  and  is  there- 
fore sinless!//  perfect.  Hear  upon  this  topic  the  standards  of 
Methodism  :  *  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law — 1.  The  Mosaic 
law.  2.  The  Adamic  law,  called  the  law  of  works,"  which 
required  that  man  should  use  to  the  glory  of  God  all  the 
powers  with  which  he  was  created,  and  which  "was  propor- 
tioned to  his  original  powers,  and  required  that  he  should 
always  think,  speak  and  act  precisely  right,  in  every  point 
whatever."  "  He  was  well  able  to  do  so,  and  God  could  not 
but  require  the  service  he  was  able  to  pay."  Then  what 
follows  ?  Why,  "  Adam  fell ;"  and  in  consequence,  "  no 
man  is  able  to  perform  the  service  which  the  Adamic  law 
requires."  And  now  for  the  conclusion:  "And  no  man  is 
obliged  to  perform  it.  God  doth  not  require  it  of  any  man. 
Christ  is  the  end  of  the  Adamic  as  well  as  the  Mosaic  law. 
By  his  death  he  put  an  end  to  both.  He  hath  abolished  both 
the  one  and  the  other,  with  regard  to  man ;  and  the  obliga- 
tion to  observe  either  the  one  or  the  other  is  vanished  away. 
Nor  is  any  man  living  bound  to  observe  the  Adamic  more 
than  the  Mosaic  law."  This,  I  should  suppose,  is  Antino- 
niianism  of  sufficient  "proof"  to  suit  the  appetite  of  the 
grossest  devotee  of  sensuality.  This  is  the  modern  method 
of  perfection — not  by  ascending  the  steep  of  moral  obligation, 
but  by  bringing  the  requirements  of  the  Divine  law  down  to  a 
level  with  the  sinner's  convenience  ! 

But  as  if  to  render  the  doctrine  absurd  as  well  as  licentious, 
Mr.  Wesley  tells  us  that  "  faith  working  or  animated  by  love 
is  all  that  God  now  requires  of  man,  and  that  he  has  substi- 
tin-  J  (not  sincerity)  but  love  in  the  room  of  angelic  (and 
Adamic)  perfection."  "This  love,"  he  adds,  "is  the  loving 
the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our  heart,  mind,  soul  and  strength, 
*  Doct  Tracts,  pp.  330,  332. 


208  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves,  i.  e.  every  man  as  our  own 
souls."*  But  this  is  entirely  up  to  the  standard  of  both  an- 
gelic and  Adamic  perfection. 

So  also  in  his  "  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection/'  he 
defines  it,  "  the  loving  God  with  all  our  heart,  mind,  soul, 
and  strength.  This  implies  (he  says,)  that  no  wrong  temper, 
none  contrary  to  love,  remains  in  the  soul ;  and  that  all  the 
thoughts,  words  and  actions  are  governed  by  pure  love." 
But  what  more  than  this  does  the  moral  law  recpuire  ?  Could 
Adam  before  his  fall  do  more  than  this?  Can  saints  and 
angels  in  heaven  ?f  Yet  he  admits  that  a  perfect  Christian 
is  not  freed  from  "infirmities,  ignorance,  and  mistake;"  but 
"  where  every  word  and  action  springs  from  love,  a  mistake  is 
not  properly  sin."  Still  he  further  assures  us,  these  sinless 
mistakes  "  need  the  atoning  blood."  Such  is  a  fair  specimen 
of  the  jargon  everywhere  current  among  the  followers  of  this 
great  Arminian  ! 

Be  it  remembered,  therefore,  that  although  "  no  man  living 
is  obliged  to  observe"  the  moral  law,  yet  "  Christian  perfec- 
tion" surpasses  the  limits  of  moral  obligation,  and  performs 
works  of  supererogation,  more  than  can  righteously  be  de- 
manded. Every  perfect  Methodist  "  loves  God  with  all  his 
heart,  soul,  mind,  and  strength,"  and  "all  his  thoughts, 
words,  and  actions,  are  governed  by  pure  love ;"  and  nothing 
more  was  ever  required  by  the  "  moral  law." 

But  that  we  may  more  fully  comprehend  the  mysteries  of 
this  singular  subject,  let  us  dwell  a  few  moments  further  upon 
its  theological  relations.  Mr.  Fletcher  (after  Wesley,)  ad- 
mits that  the  most  advanced  Christian  falls  short,  in  this 
life,  of  the  obedience  required  by  the  moral  or  Adamic  law, 
which  he  calls  "the  Creator's  anti-evangelical,  paradisaical 
law  of  innocence,"  and  which  he  thinks  has  been  abolished. 

*  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  333. 

-j-  Wesley  himself  affirms — "The  loving  God  with  all  the  heart,"  "  is  tho 
most  exalted  height  of  man  or  angel."    Misc.  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  228. 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS    PERFECTION.  209 

Instead  of  that  original  constitution,  he  holds  to  "a  milder 
law,  adapted  to  our  state  and  circumstances" — "  the  evangeli- 
cal mediatorial  law  of  our  Redeemer."  (See  last  Check.)  It 
is  by  this  milder  law  that  Christians  are  tried,  and  by  which 
they  are  correctly  considered  "  perfect;"  that  is,  as  having 
yielded  complete  obedience  to  the  only  law  which  now  requires 
their  respect  and  submission. 

Now,  without  pausing  particularly  to  inquire  what  is  the 
precise  meaning  of  a  "milder  late ;"  that  is,  a  law  less  strict, 
less  perfect,  less  like  God,  than  the  one  which  we  know  was 
"holy,  just,  and  good;"  without  too  nicely  inquiring,  whether 
this  new  law  is  less  holy,  less  just,  and  less  good;  whether 
the  nature  of  moral  good  and  evil  is  changed,  so  that  this  new 
law  of  God  will  not  condemn  all  sin  ;  whether  the  moral  law 
be  indeed  "  anti-evangelical,"  "against  the  promises  of  God" 
(Gal.  3  :  21);  and  lastly,  where  this  milder  law  is  revealed  in 
the  New  Testament,  by  Him  who  said,  "I  am  come  not  to 
destroy  the  law;"  or  by  him  who  inquires,  "Do  we  make 
void  the  law  through  faith  ?  God  forbid  I" — or  by  him  who 
asserts,  "  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law" — not  "  of  a 
Divine  law,"  as  Mr.  Fletcher  has  it.  Passing  all  these,  let  us 
examine  narrowly  the  logical  consistency  of  the  very  ground- 
work of  the  scheme.  Man,  they  tell  us,  became  by  his  fall 
morally  unable  to  render  the  obedience  required  by  the  moral 
law,  and  "  God  does  not  require  it  of  any  man ;"  but  in  infin- 
ite grace,  has  placed  us  under  "the  new  evangelical  law  of 
our  Redeemer,"  which  we  are  morally  able  to  obey,  and  are 
bound  to  respect  in  thought,  word  and  deed.  It  was  the  great 
work  which  was  given  Christ  to  do,  to  make  a  "  perfect  satis- 
faction" for  our  "  original  sin,"  to  introduce  a  milder  law, 
and  apply  the  merits  of  his  blood  to  atone  for  our  deficiencies 
and  shortcomings  of  obedience  to  the  evangelical  lata,  which 
deficiencies  do  "  need  the  atoning  blood,"  even  in  our  estate 
of  sinless  perfection. 

What  a  rope  of  sand  have  we  here  !  In  the  first  place, 
18* 


210  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

how  strange  an  abuse  of  language,  to  say  the  least,  is  it  to 
represent  it  as  a  distinguishing  feature  of  gospel  grace,  that 
Christ  should  "  abolish"  or  u  put  an  end"  to  a  law  with  re- 
gard to  man,  which  law,  man  having  become  unable  to  obey, 
was  not  injustice  bound  to  observe,  nor  could  justly  be  pun- 
ished for  neglecting  to  observe  ! !  And  in  the  second  place, 
if  Christ  has  introduced  a  milder  law,  requiring  no  more 
than  imperfect  sincere  obedience — if  the  new  law  is  so  adapted 
to  our  weak  and  fallen  condition,  that  instead  of  the  rigorous 
exactions  of  the  "  moral  law,"  we  are  now  bound  by  milder 
obligations,  and  God  will  accept  the  less  perfect  (or  imperfect) 
service  we  are  able  to  render,  and  can  justly  require  of  us  no 
other — still  the  inquiry  returns,  where  is  the  wonderful  grace 
discoverable  in  this  arrangement  ?  What  need  of  Christ's 
dying  to  secure  the  acceptance  on  the  part  of  the  Judge,  of 
such  obedience  as  it  would  be  unjust  for  him  not  to  accept? 
Or  in  other  words,  did  Christ  die  to  prevent  unrighteousness 
with  God  ?  Did  he  die  to  avert  from  our  heads  punishment 
for  imperfect  obedience,  when  in  fact  we  can  be  justly  bound 
to  obey  no  law  which  requires  any  other  than  imperfect  obe- 
dience ? 

But  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  Scriptures  in  defense  of  this 
mass  of  incoherencies.  The  doctrine  which  we  have  endeav- 
ored to  state,  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  words  of  its  advo- 
cates, would  seem  to  carry  with  it  its  own  refutation,  and  it 
would  appear  to  be  altogether  a  work  of  supererogation  to 
enter  into  any  further  argument  to  prove  its  folly.  Profound 
indeed  must  be  the  ignorance  of  the  purity,  perpetuity,  per- 
fection and  spirituality  of  the  Divine  law,  and  great  must  be 
the  inattention  to  the  plain  statements  of  the  Scriptures, 
which  will  admit  such  a  sentiment  into  a  theological  system  ! 
"  In  many  things  we  offend  all ;"  or,  all  are  in  many  things 
chargeable  with  sin.  James  3:2.  "  What  is  man  that  he 
should  be  clean,  or  he  that  is  born  of  a  woman  that  he  should 
be  righteous."  Job  15  :  14.     "  There  is  not  a  just  man  on 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  211 

earth  that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not."  Eccles.  7 :  20. 
"  For  there  is  no  man  that  sinneth  not."  1  Kings  8  : 4(5. 
And  in  chap.  9  :  20,  Job  asserts,  "If  I  say  I  am  perfect,  it 
shall  also  prove  me  perverse."  Paul  also,  speaking  of  him- 
self, says:  "  Not  as  though  I  were  already  perfect.''  Phil. 
3  :  12.  We  have  reason  to  suspect  that  neither  of  these  an- 
cient worthies  knew  any  thing  about  "sinless  perfection." 
The  perfect  Christian,  according  to  the  representations  of 
Holy  Writ,  is  he  who  continually  aspires  to  universal  holi- 
ness of  heart  and  life.  "  It  is  said  of  Noah,  Job  and  others, 
that  they  were  perfect — of  all  Christians,  that  they  are  com- 
plete— of  Zachariah  and  Elizabeth,  that  they  walked  in  all 
the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  blameless. 
But,  it  is  granted  on  all  hands,  that  these  and  other  terms  of 
similar  import  are  often  used  in  a  qualified  and  restricted 
sense ;  and  therefore  no  decisive  proof  can  be  drawn  from 
their  appearance  in  this  connection.  They  occur  in  the  sacred 
writings,  as  they  do  in  the  language  of  ordinary  conversation, 
as  signifying  high  degrees  of  excellency,  but  not  absolute 
perfection.  When  we  say  of  an  individual,  '  He  is  a  perfect 
character,'  we  are  never  suspected  of  intending  to  convey 
the  idea  that  he  is  without  a  fault — that  he  is  an  angel  as  to 
his  moral  purity — that  he  is  free  from  all  imperfection  in  the 
discharge  of  duty.  Instead  of  this  what  we  mean  to  express 
is,  that  he  is  a  person  of  uniformly  correct  and  praiseworthy 
deportment.  His  character  is  well  balanced,  and,  in  this 
sense,  complete — his  life  is  a  well-regulated  life — there  is  no 
one  respect  in  which  he  especially  fails — and  we  therefore 
apply  to  him  the  idea  of  perfection,  and  point  to  him  as  an 
example  to  be  imitated  by  others."*  Such  was  Job  and  such 
was  Paul ;  each  of  whom  would  nevertheless  willingly  con- 
fess, "  not  as  though  I  were  already  perfect." 

Again  :  If  one  person  could  be  found  in  a  perfectly  sinless 
state,  there  would  be  one  exception  to  the  use  of  that  univer- 
*  Snodgrass  on  Sanctification,  p.  32. 


212  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

sal  prayer  taught  by  our  Lord  himself,  in  which,  whilst  we 
are  instructed  to  say,  "  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread," 
we  are  required,  with  no  less  frequency,  to  implore  forgive- 
ness of  our  "trespasses,  as  we  forgive  those  icho  trespass  against 
lis."  There  would  be  one  who  could  say,  I  have  no  sin  daily 
committed,  why  should  I  supplicate  daily  forgiveness  ?  Thus 
is  the  commandment  of  the  Most  High  God  made  of  none 
effect  by  the  traditions  of  men. 

And  what  is  even  more  revolting  to  every  Christian  feeling 
— if  the  wise  king  of  Israel  were  now  on  earth,  and  should 
utter  that  humble  acknowledgment,  "  There  is  not  a  just 
man  on  earth  that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not,"  many  a 
Methodist  would  start  from  his  seat  to  correct  his  error,  and 
erase  the  line  from  the  records  of  Inspiration.  Yes  !  what- 
ever Solomon  may  have  thought,  there  are  noio  just  men  on 
earth  who  can  kneel  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  thank  him 
that  they  love  him  as  fervently  and  constantly  as  they  ought, 
and  obey  him  as  perfectly  as  they  ought ;  and  this,  too,  in 
direct  defiance  of  their  own  Article,  which  asserts  that  "  good 
works  cannot  endure  the  severity  of  God's  judgment."  Art. 
10.  We  had  been  accustomed  to  think  that  such  were  the 
"  height,  and  depth,  and  length,  and  breadth,"  of  the  love 
of  Christ,  which  passes  knowledge,  and  such  the  imperfections 
and  corruptions  of  the  body  of  this  death,  that  no  mortal  man 
would  return  to  the  Saviour  a  love  as  strong,  and  constant, 
and  fervent  as  he  ought;  but  it  seems  we  labored  under  a 
mistake.  We  had  forgotten  those  perfect  Christians,  who 
had  they  lived  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  when  as  yet  the  proph- 
ecy was  not  sealed  up,  must,  for  the  credit  of  Divine  truth, 
have  proposed  an  amendment  in  the  64th  chapter  :  "  We  are 
all  as  an  unclean  thing,  and  all  our  righteousnesses  are  as 
filthy  rags — excepting  a  few  very  good  people  called  Method- 
ists." 

But  in  reply  to  the  numerous  express  declarations  of  the 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine, 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS    PERFECTION.  213 

Wesley  affirms  that  "  tbcy^livcd  under  a  dispensation  greatly 
inferior  to  the  Christian,  and  that  nothing  can  be  argued 
from  their  confessions  of  universal  sin.  Christ,  too,  tells 
us.  Matt.  11  :  11,  "  Among  them  that  are  born  of  women, 
there  hath  not  risen  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist ;  not- 
withstanding, he  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
(viz.  the  gospel  dispensation)  is  greater  than  he."  This 
passage  he  interprets  as  referring  to  a  degree  of  personal  holi- 
ness greater  than  belonged  to  any  of  the  ancient  people  of  God. 
But  could  it  have  been  really  the  opinion  of  Mr.  W.  that 
"the  least"  or  feeblest  and  most  imperfect  Christian  in  gospel 
times,  is  a  more  holy  and  heavenly-minded  person  than  were 
David,  and  Job,  and  Isaiah  ?  Will  any  sensible  Methodist 
avow  such  a  sentiment  ?  Dr.  Clarke,  in  his  note  on  the  pass- 
age,  says,  "that  it  is  not  in  holiness  or  devotedness  to  God, 
that  the  least  in  the  kingdom  is  greater  than  John,  but  that 
it  is  merely  in  the  difference  of  the  ministry."  The  testimony 
of  this  distinguished  Methodist  is  true. 

Nor  do  these  great  leaders  of  the  Methodist  host  harmonize 
much  better  in  their  views  of  James  3:2,  "  If  any  man 
offend  not  in  word,  the  same  is  a  perfect  man."  Wesley 
quotes  this  text  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  "  Christian  Perfec- 
tion." But  Dr.  Clarke  says,  "  the  words,  perfect  man,  mean 
a  man  fully  instructed  in  Divine  things — an  adult  Christian 
— one  thoroughly  instructed  in  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel." 
And  to  show  conclusively  how  absurd  it  is  to  employ  this 
text  in  proof  of  "  Christian  Perfection,"  Dr.  C.  adds,  "  how 
a  man's  cautiousness  in  what  he  says  can  be  a  proof  that  he 
has  every  passion  and  appetite  under  control,  I  cannot  see." 
According  to  this,  a  man  may  indulge  all  the  bad  passions  in 
his  In  art;  if  he  can  only  manage  to  conceal  them,  and  not 
offend  in  word,  he  is  a  perfect  Christian! 

Dr.  Clarke  and  Mr.  Wesley,  however,  unite  their  forces 
when  they  come  to  parry  the  point  of  the  argument  drawn 
from  James  3:2.     The  substance  of  what  they  have  to  say  is, 


214  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XII. 

"  that  this  text  proves  nothing  against  sinless  perfection,  al- 
though the  Apostle  does  assert,  'in  many  things  we  offend 
all;'  for  if  the  Apostle  includes  himself  in  the  pronoun  we, 
he  must  also  include  himself,  when,  speaking  of  the  tongue, 
he  says,  '  Therewith  bless  we  God,  and  therewith  curse  we 
men.'  We  cannot  suppose  James  was  guilty  of  cursing." 
But  a  little  attention  will  show  the  futility  of  this  reasoning. 
In  the  first  passage,  James  says,  "  we  offend  all,"  or,  we  all 
offend — are  guilty  of  breaking  God's  law  "  in  many  things." 
But  James  does  not  say,  "With  the  tongue  we  all  bless 
God,  and  we  all  curse  men."  Every  one  familiar  with  the 
common  forms  of  speech,  knows  that  the  pronoun  we  is  often 
employed  to  denote  a  general  prevalence  of  any  thing,  or  a 
prevailing  tendency  or  liability,  among  men.  But  could  the 
truth-speaking  God  have  said,  that  "  we  all  sin  in  many 
things,"  if  it  were  true,  that  many  men  do  not  sin  in  any 
thing?  "If  we,"  says  the  last  of  the  Apostles,  "if  we  say 
we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not 
in  us." 

We  have  thus  aimed  to  state  fairly  and  in  the  language  of 
its  friends,  this  dogma  of  Arminianism,  and  to  adduce  some 
of  the  more  obvious  scriptural  arguments  which  overthrow 
it.  But  as  few  doctrines  are  ecpially  in  favor  with  Method- 
ists, let  us  examine  a  little  more  particularly  its  scriptural 
foundations.  Every  argument  thus  drawn  from  the  armory 
of  inspired  truth,  will  be  "  a  difficulty"  in  the  way  of  the 
system. 

1.  There  is  great  reason  to  fear  that  the  existence  of  such 
a  dogma  among  the  members  of  any  sect,  is  a  sad  evidence 
of  self-deception.  In-  his  tract  on  "Christian  Perfection," 
instead  of  cautioning  his  followers  against  the  perils  of  "  a 
deceived  heart,"  Mr.  Wesley  rather  encourages  them  to 
think  themselves  "  to  be  something  when  they  are  nothing." 
Speaking  of  one  of  those  "  who  fancy  they  have  attained  (to 
perfection)  when  they  have  not,"  he  says,  "but  he  is  de- 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  215 

ceivcd.  What  then  ?  It  is  a  harmless  mistake,  while  he 
feels  nothing  but  love  in  his  heart.  It  is  a  mistake  which 
generally  argues  GREAT  GRACE,  a  high  degree  both  of  holi- 
ness and  happiness."  In  other  words,  this  "sinless  mistake," 
which  "  needs  the  atoning  blood"  to  cleanse  its  filthiness,  is 
an  evidence  of  superior  attainments  in  religion  !  It  need 
scarcely  be  said,  that  in  the  experience  of  such  men  as  Paul, 
Edwards,  Payson,  Brainerd  and  others,  the  holiest  men  of 
modern  and  ancient  times,  no  such  pretension  ever  appears. 
Paul  indeed  thought  "himself  alive  without  the  law  once;" 
"but  when  the  commandment  came,"  when  enlightened  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  was  enabled  to  understand  how  exceed- 
ing broad,  spiritual  and  perfect  were  its  requirements;  then 
"he  died,"  i.  e.  died  unto  all  hope  of  fulfilling  the  demands 
of  the  law,  or  satisfying  Divine  justice  —  then  he  exclaims, 
"  0  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the 
body  of  this  death  !" 

Head,  too,  the  diaries  of  Edwards  and  others,  whom  all 
admit  to  have  been  preeminent  in  holiness.  And  "  in  turn- 
ing over  their  pages,  you  will  find  that,  as  the  piety  of  the 
individual  rises,  his  sense  of  remaining  sin  becomes  deeper  and 
more  afflicting.  The  seasons  of  his  closest  communion  with 
God,  are  the  seasons  in  which  he  sees  most  in  himself  to  be 
repented  of  and  subdued.  The  nearer  he  comes  to  the 
throne,  the  lower  he  lies  in  confession  and  self-abasement. 
It  is  not  when  he  hears  of  God  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear,  but 
when  his  eye  seeth  him,  that  he  abhors  himself  and  repents 
in  dust  and  ashes.  In  short,  it  is  when  his  devotion  burns 
with  the  brightest  and  purest  flame,  that  he  has  the  clearest 
insight  into  the  depravity  of  his  own  nature  :  so  that,  while 
he  is  sensible  of  an  increase  of  grace,  he  is  equally  sensible 
that  more  grace  is  still  needed  to  carry  on  and  complete  his 
deliverance  from  sin."  * 

2.  A  second  argument  is  derived  from  the  examples  and 
*  Dr.  Snodgrass. 


216  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XII. 

confessions  of  the  most  distinguished  saints  of  patriarchal  and 
apostolic  times.  The  intoxication  of  Noah,  the  dissimulation 
of  Abraham,  the  distrust  of  Jacob,  the  criminal  rashness  of 
Moses — not  to  speak  of  the  humiliating  crimes  of  David  and 
Solomon,  the  imperfections  of  Job  and  Jeremiah,  of  Eli, 
Samuel,  Asa,  Hezekiah  and  Josiah — all  are  "ensamples"  for 
our  warning.  Nor  was  the  case  different  with  Peter,  who,  as 
Paul  says,  "  was  to  be  blamed" — and  therefore  he  "  withstood 
him  to  his  face."  James,  too,  and  John  seem  to  have  felt 
the  spirit  of  revenge,  and  would  have  called  "  fire  from 
heaven"  to  execute  their  wrath  upon  the  Samaritans. 

And  so  with  their  confessions.  "  Mine  iniquities  have 
gone  over  my  head,  they  are  too  heavy  for  me."  "  Who  can 
understand  his  errors;  cleanse  thou  me  from  secret  faults" — 
intimating  that  there  are  none,  not  even  Christians,  without 
such  faults  to  be  cleansed.  "Behold,  I  am  vile,"  says  Job, 
and  Nehemiah  and  Daniel  include  themselves  in  their  con- 
fessions of  the  sins  of  Israel. 

3.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  a  sjnritual  warfare  in  the 
best  men,  and  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  per- 
fection. "  The  flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit  and  the  spirit 
is  against  the  flesh  :  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the 
other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would."  In 
like  manner  in  Roni.  7  the  Apostle  depicts  in  most  striking 
terms  this  great  contest  on  the  battle-field  of  man's  heart. 
Arininians  pretend  that  he  is  describing  the  struggles  of  the 
unregenerate — but  could  any  such  truly  say,  "  /  delight  in 
the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man  V  It  is  an  attainment 
of  the  good  man,  that  "  his  delight  is  in  the  law  of  the  Lord." 
"  Oh,  how  love  I  thy  law."  And  Paul's  strong  sense  of  in- 
dwelling sin  extorts  the  confession — "I  am  carnal,  sold  under 
sin." 

4.  But  says  Wesley,  "Ezekiel  (chap.  36:  25-29  has  a 
promise,  than  which  none  can  be  more  clear :  '  I  will  sprin- 
kle clean  water  upon  you  and  you  shall  be  clean ;   from  all 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  217 

your  idols  and  from  all  your  filthiness  will  I  cleanse  you  :  I 
will  also  save  you  from  all  your  uncleanness.'  So  also  John: 
'  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested,  that  he 
might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil ;'  and  '  Christ  gave  him- 
self for  the  church,  *  *  *  that  she  might  not  have  spot  or 
wrinkle  or  any  such  thing.'  "*  But  if  these  and  scores  of  simi- 
lar texts  prove  anything  on  the  subject,  they  prove  far  too 
much.  They  prove  that  all  Israel  are  "  cleansed  from  idols  and 
filthiness,"  and  the  whole  church  "  saved  from  uncleanness  I" 
But  no  Arminian  is  prepared  for  such  a  sentiment.  The  plain 
and  obvious  meaning  of  such  passages  is,  that  sanctification  is 
one  of  the  great  and  precious  blessings  of  the  "  New  Cove- 
nant"— and  that  to  every  believer  is  secured  a  perfect  deliv- 
erance from  the  power  and  pollution  of  sin.  The  time  when 
these  promises  are  to  be  fulfilled,  is  quite  another  epiestion, 
and  is  left  unsettled. 

5.  The  doctrine  of  entire  or  "Sinless  Perfection"  is  dis- 
proved by  the  prayers  of  inspired  men.  "  Enter  not  into 
judgment  with  thy  servant,  for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man 
living  be  justified."  "  The  Lord  fills  the  poor  with  good 
things,  but  the  rich  (those  who  say  they  are  '  rich  and  in- 
creased with  goods')  he  sends  empty  away."  Such  rich  ones 
only  prove  that  they  "  are  wretched  and  miserable  and  poor 
and  blind  and  naked."  The  true  Christian,  on  the  contrary, 
is  deeply  sensible  of  his  imperfections  even  in  his  holy  things, 
and  "his  continual  suit  to  God,"  the  judicious  Hooker  says, 
is  "  that  he  would  bear  with  our  infirmities  and  pardon  our 
offenses." 

6.  The  sixth  argument  against  perfection  in  this  life,  is 
founded  on  that  large  class  of  texts  which  teaches  that  per- 
fect conformity  to  God  is  to  be  the  peculiar  reward  of  a  future 
existence.  "  I  shall  be  satisfied  when  I  awake  in  thy  like- 
ness"— "when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  belike  him,  for  we 
shall  see  him  as  he  is."     Why  are  "  the  spirits  of  just  men 

*Doct.  Traots,  p.  305. 

19 


218  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XII. 

made  perfect "  said  to  constitute  the  citizens  of  that  sinless 
country,  if  many  of  them  are  made  perfect  before  they  enter 
the  tomb  ? 

7.  The  same  result  is  reached,  when  we  consider  the  dis- 
cipline and  afflictions  to  which  the  best  of  God's  people  are 
subject.  He  thus  utters  the  voice  of  his  providence  :  "Arise 
ye,  for  this  is  not  your  rest,  for  it  is  polluted."  "  When 
God  with  rebuke  corrects  man  for  iniquity,  he  makes  his 
beauty  to  consume  away  like  a  moth."  "  Whom  the  Lord 
loveth  he  chasteneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  re- 
ceiveth."  "  As  many  as  I  love,  I  rebuke  and  chasten." 
"  He  chastens  us  for  our  profit,  that  we  might  be  partakers 
of  his  holiness."  But  if  in  any  case  this  object  is  already 
attained,  why  are  they  still  made  to  suffer  ?  No  wise  and 
merciful  parent  ever  inflicts  needless  pain  on  his  own  children. 

And  who  can  doubt  that  the  fact,  as  thus  stated,  is  a  fair 
representation  of  what  occurs  in  the  life  of  every  Christian,  up 
to  the  moment  of  his  release  from  the  body  ?  For  where  is 
the  "son"  to  be  found  whom  the  father  "chasteneth  not," 
and  whom  he  does  not  continue  to  chasten  as  long  as  he 
lives  ?  We  have  never  seen  him,  in  our  day ;  nor  is  there 
any  allusion  to  him  in  the  records  of  the  past.  "  We,  that 
are  in  this  tabernacle,  do  groan,  being  burdened  " — "  we,  who 
have  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves,  groan 
within  ourselves."  All  believers,  without  regard  to  the 
degree  of  their  sanctification,  are  thus  affected.  They  groan 
under  the  pressure,  which  is  still  upon  them  in  the  trial  of 
their  faith.  "  Our  light  affliction,"  is  a  phrase  which  they 
have  frequent  occasion  to  pronounce  ;  "  the  sufferings  of  this 
present  time,"  are  things  with  which  they  have  a  daily  and 
an  intimate  acquaintance. 

Here,  then,  is  a  chain  of  truths,  inseparably  connected  ; 
and,  by  necessity,  leading  to  the  conclusion,  that  there  is  no 
sinless  perfection  in  the  present  world.  All  Christians  are 
subjected,  while  here,  to  chastisements;    all   chastisements 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  219 

are  from  the  hand  of  God;  the  only  present  object  which 
God  has  in  view,  in  chastising  his  people,  is  to  make  them 
more  holy;  he  cannot  be  supposed  to  chastise  them  "  will- 
ingly," or  without  a  reason;  and  hence  it  follows,  that  none 
of  their  number  are  so  holy  as  to  be  beyond  the  necessity  of 
a  still  higher  degree  of  sanctification.  The  argument  is 
perfect,  and  the  conclusion  so  legitimate,  that  it  would  seem 
impossible  for  a  candid  mind  to  evade  it,  or  be  insensible  to 
its  force.* 

8.  It  is  no  small  presumption  against  Perfectionism,  that 
most  of  its  arguments  are  scarcely  even  plausible.  Thus  says 
Wesley  :  "  God  commands  us  to  be  perfect,  as  our  Father  is 
perfect."  But  the  same  God  prohibits  all  sin  in  mankind. 
Does  it  thence  follow  that  some  men  pass  through  a  long  life 
without  sin  ?  Again  we  are  told,  "  that  provision  is  made  in 
the  gospel  for  the  attainment  of  perfection."  No  doubt  of  it. 
So  provision  is  made  for  deliverance  from  pain,  sickness  and 
sorrow.  The  question  is,  when  will  this  take  place  ?  So 
also,  many  of  their  favorite  proof  texts  belong  to  justification, 
not  to  sanctification.  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth 
us  from  all  sin."  This  refers  to  the  pardon  of  sin — for  not 
the  atonement,  but  the  Spirit  of  Christ  by  a  direct  influence, 
cleanseth  the  soul.  It  is  true,  the  death  of  Christ  is  the  ran- 
som-price ;  but  the  text  is  more  naturally  interpreted,  of  the 
Divine  agency.  Besides,  the  time  when  this  cleansing  is 
done,  even  supposing  it  to  refer  to  holiness,  is  left  undecided. 
So  when  John  says :  "  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not 
commit  sin;  for  his  seed  (the  seed  of  grace)  remaincth  in 
him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God."  Now  if 
this  prove  perfection,  it  proves  it  of  all  "  who  are  born  of 
God,"  i.  e.  all  Christians.  But  Arminians  themselves  admit 
this  to  be  not  true.  Besides,  it  proves  the  certain  persever- 
ance of  all  the  regenerated — "his  seed  remaincth  in  them." 
Further,  John  himself  (ch.  1 :  8)  says,  "  If  we  say  we  have 
*  Dr.  Snodgrass,  pp.  72,  73. 


220  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us,"  i.  e. 
we  are  "  destitute  of  the  truth,"  "  are  liars,  and  the  truth  is  not 
in  us,"  as  John  explains  himself  in  his  second  chapter.  If 
then  we  say,  "  we  have  no  sin,"  we  are  no  Christians.  Such 
is  the  decision  of  Inspiration. 

What  then  does  the  Holy  Spirit  mean  by  the  phrases, 
"  doth  not  commit  sin,"  "  cannot  sin  ?"  Dr.  Clarke,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  finds  his  favorite  perfection  in  this  as  in 
scores  of  similar  texts,  and  lifts  up  a  warning  voice  against 
those  "  who  plead  for  Baal  I"  But  whether  he  means  that 
every  one  "  born  of  God  "  is  "saved  from  all  sin  in  this  life,"* 
he  does  not  inform  us.  Dr.  Scott,  wisely  and  in  harmony 
with  the  Scriptures,  interprets  these  phrases  to  refer  to  "  living 
in  the  commission  of  allowed  sin,"  and  as  teaching  that  it  is 
impossible  for  any  true  believer  "  to  sin  with  allowance,  con- 
tinuance and  satisfaction."  To  "  commit  sin  "  and  to  "  do 
righteousness,"  both  refer  to  the  habit  of  life,  not  to  individual 
acts.  Of  course  they  affirm  nothing  about  "  sinless  perfec- 
tion." 

9.  The  testimony  of  church  history  is  no  less  strongly  in 
opposition  to  the  dogma  of  Sinless  Perfection.  From  the 
days  of  Augustine  in  the  fourth  century,  down  to  John  Wes- 
ley of  the  eighteenth,  who  have  been  the  advocates  of  this 
unscriptural  notion  ?  It  has  been  confined  to  Pelagius  and  a 
few  heretical  sects,  small  in  numbers  and  influence,  and  whose 
very  names  have  always  been  a  stench  in  the  nostrils  of  the 
true  church.  To  these  must  be  added  the  great  anti-chris- 
tian  apostasy  of  Rome.  Her  doctrine  of  Supererogation  is 
only  Perfectionism  run  mad!  The  favored  children  of  this 
"  mother  of  harlots  and  abominations  of  the  earth,"  are  not 
only  perfect  in  all  obedience  required  by  the  law,  but  perform 
a  large  amount  of  righteousness  over  and  above  their  duty  I 
Of  this  treasury  of  merit,  the  Pope  holds  the  infallible  key, 
and  distributes  to  all  who  are  in  arrears  to  Divine  justice  ! 
*  Com.  on  1  John  3  :  8. 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  221 

And  how  stands  this  matter  now  ?  What  evangelical  church 
besides  Armiztian  Methodism,  shows  any  leaning  toward  this 
sinless  dogma?  The  Lutheran  body,  as  well  as  several  of  the 
minor  Baptist  sects,  are  decided  Arminians  ;  but  here  they 
agree  with  Calvinists.  With  the  suspicious  exceptions  before 
stated,  the  followers  of  Wesley  stand  alone.  Finney,  Mahan 
and  a  few  other  Congregationalists  of  the  Pelagian  stamp, 
have  gone  over  to  their  party — but  with  almost  no  exception, 
the  true  church  of  Christ  in  her  various  branches,  pronounces 
Arminian  Perfectionism  a  novelty  among  believers  and  a 
blotch  upon  the  purity  of  Apostolic  doctrine.  In  holding  and 
zealously  teaching  this  strange  dogma,  Methodism  virtually 
charges  the  universal  church  with  dangerous  error.  "  Dark- 
ness covers  the  earth  and  thick  darkness  the  people" — but 
in  the  Arminian  Goshen,  "  light  is  in  all  their  dwellings  !" 

10.  The  fruits  of  Perfectionism,  though  checked  in  their 
full  development  by  the  admixture  of  much  precious  truth, 
have  not  unfrecpiently  been  of  "  the  vine  of  Sodom  and  the 
clusters  of  Gomorrah."  It  led  Wesley,  as  before  stated,  to 
regard  self-deception  as  an  evidence  of  "great  grace!"  He 
himself  tells  us  that  in  his  day  "  some  had  left  off  searching 
the  Scriptures,"  alleging  that  "  God  writes  all  the  Scripture 
on  our  hearts ;  therefore  we  have  no  need  to  read  it."*  And 
he  finds  it  needful  to  warn  his  followers  "  that  some  were 
wanting  in  gentleness,  goodness,  fidelity,  a  nice  regard  to 
truth,  meekness,  temperance.  They  did  not  receive  reproof 
with  gentleness — were  not  able  to  bear  contradiction,  without 
the  appearance  of  resentment."  "  They  answer  with  angry 
tone,  in  a  sharp  or  surly  manner."  He  also  cautions  them 
against  "  enthusiasm,"  "  Antinomianism,"  "  self-indulgence," 
"sins  of  omission,"  "  schism,"  "the  love  of  some  was  hardly 
without  dissimulation.  Something  like  guile  was  found  in 
their  mouth."  And  on  pages  68,  69  of  the  Book  of  Discip- 
line, we  read — "The  world  says,    '  The   Methodists   are  no 

*  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  353. 
19* 


222  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

better  than  other  people.'  This  is  not  true  in  the  general." 
("God,  I  thank  thee,"  said  the  self-righteous  Pharisee,  "that 

I  am  not  as  other  men.")  After  thus  publishing  their  supe- 
rior goodness,  we  are  naturally  led  to  expect  from  the  same 
source,  a  very  exalted  character  of  that  piety  which  is  so 
much  better  than  that  of  all  the  world  besides.  A  few  lines 
below,  on  the  same  page,  we  read — "  How  little  faith  is  there 
among  us  !  How  much  love  of  the  world !  Desire  of  plea- 
sure, of  ease,  of  getting  money."  "  What  continual  judging 
one  another  !  What  gossiping,  evil  speaking,  tale-bearing  ! 
What  want  of  moral  honesty  ! ! ! " 

A  still  more  unfavorable  estimate  is  found  in  Wesley's 
"  Sermon  on  the  inefficacy  of  Christianity."  He  lays  down 
three  rules: — "Gain  all  you  can."  "Save  all  you  can." 
"Give  all  you  can."  He  admits  "that  many  observe  the 
first  rule,  and  a  few  the  second;  but  adds  that  he  had  "no 
reason  to  believe  that  Jive  hundred  in  fifty  thousand  Method- 
ists observed  the  third  rule."  Yet  he  affirms  "  nothing  can 
be  more  plain"  than  that  all  these  last  are  "  twofold  more 
the  children  of  hell  than  ever  they  were  before  !"  By  his 
own  estimate,  therefore,  a  large  proportion  of  his  followers 
were  twice  as  wicked  as  before  their  conversion  !  These,  be 
it  remembered,  are  their  own  estimates  of  the  fruits  of  a  sys- 
tem which  they  call  "Scriptural  Christianity;"  and  that,  too, 
in  its  virgin  vigor  and  efficiency.  When  such  authors  as  Mr. 
Foster  and  Bishop  Simpson  exhibit  Calvinism  as  "  productive 
of  recklessness,  licentiousness  and  crime  as  its  legitimate  off- 
spring," &c*  would  it  not  be  worth  their  while  to  look  at 
home  ?     "  The  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits." 

But  not  only  had  "  some"  of  these  early  Methodists  left  off 

II  searching  the  Scriptures,"  but  they  had  to  be  warned  against 
supposing  "dreams,  voices,  impressions,  visions  or  revela- 
tions, to  be  from  God,"  "  imagining  they  had  the  gift  of  pro- 
phesying and  discerning  spirits,"    "thinking    that  because 

*  Objections,  Ac.  p.  213,  &c. 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS    PERFECTION.  223 

they  were  filled  with  love,  they  did  not  need  so  much  holi- 
ness !"  And  what  is  this  but  infidelity  in  disguise,  substi- 
tuting the  illapses  and  movings  of  the  Spirit,  as  they  suppose, 
in  the  room  of  the  teachings  of  revelation.  This  is  substan- 
tially Quakerism  and  Shakerism,  or  at  least  tends  strongly  in 
that  direction. 

11.  Those  are  widely  mistaken  who  suppose  that  the  per- 
fectionist dogma  is  a  harmless  mistake,  or  even  good  in  some  of 
its  tendencies.  If  the  views  entertained  of  practical  religion 
by  all  our  wisest  and  holiest  men,  are  worth  anything,  then 
Perfectionism  is  based  upon  gross  error,  and  is  a  most  dan- 
gerous delusion.  It  virtually  explains  away  or  repeals  God's 
holy  and  unchangeable  law.  "The  idea,"  says  the  late  Dr. 
Archibald  Alexander,  "  of  bringing  down  the  law  to  adapt  it 
to  the  ability  of  fallen  man,  is  absurd;  for  on  that  principle 
the  more  any  man  is  under  the  dominion  of  sin,  the  less  will 
the  law  require  of  him.  This  principle  would  go  far  to  nul- 
lify the  law  altogether."  Again  :  "  If  we  are  true  Christ- 
ians, we  do  now  possess  such  a  spiritual  knowledge  of  the 
law,  that  we  are  daily  convinced  of  our  want  of  conformity  to 
it,  and  do  see  and  feel  something  of  the  odious  nature  of  the 
sin  which  dwells  within  us."  Hence  it  follows,  if  we  do  not 
feel  daily  this  sinfulness,  it  proves  that  we  are  not  "  true 
Christians." 

Again  says  the  venerable  Dr.  A.  Alexander,  "  The  convic- 
tion of  sin  increases  in  the  mind  of  the  true  believer,  in  pro- 
portion to  his  growth  in  grace.  The  more  eminent  any  man  is 
in  piety,  the  deeper  will  be  his  sense  of  the  inward  defilement 
of  sin  and  the  greater  his  self-abhorrence."  In  other  words,  the 
more  spiritual  light  is  poured  into  his  soul,  the  more  clearly 
does  he  discover  the  filth  and  abomination  of  his  depraved 
nature,  as  yet  only  partially  sanctified.  But  if  this  be  true 
religion,  Wesley  and  his  followers  are  egregiously  mistaken — 
for  their  doctrine  is,  u  that  grown  Christians  see  themselves  to 
be  free  from  all  sin,  both  outward  and  inward." 


224  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XII. 

Hear  the  venerable  Alexander  once  more:  "They  who 
dream  of  a  perfection  in  this  life,  which  leads  them  to  think 
they  are  free  from  all  sin,  evidently  have  not  the  same  kind 
of  religion  as  the  patriarch  Job,  '  a  perfect  and  upright  man.' 
Such  are  evidently  ignorant  of  the  purity  and  spirituality  of 
the  Divine  law;  or  ignorant  of  the  true  state  of  their  own 
hearts."  "  There  is  no  better  evidence  of  an  enlightened  and 
renewed  heart,  than  just  views  and  feelings  in  regard  to  our 
own  sins.  It  seems,  at  first  view,  wonderful  that  any  person 
should  be  so  blinded  as  to  think  that  he  has  no  sin.  But 
there  are  many  blinding  influences — '  the  heart  is  deceitful 
above  all  things/  Nothing  is  more  efficient  than  spiritual 
pride."* 

Once  more :  "  In  regard  to  a  large  part  of  sinful  acts  or 
omissions,  most  men  remain  ignorant  of  them,  because  they 
know  not  the  extent  and  spirituality  of  the  law ;  especially 
in  regard  to  the  affections  and  purposes  of  the  heart,  in  which 
sin  has  its  origin  and  its  essence."  "  Souls  under  the  sanc- 
tifying influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  led  to  see  that  their 
chief  disease  is  one  of  the  heart ;  and  before  God  they  mourn 
daily  over  their  want  of  holy  feelings  and  emotions,  and  the 
many  evils  which  they,  by  the  application  of  the  law,  detect 
in  themselves.  Thus  they  are  convinced  that  the  heart 
itself,  which  generates  such  sinful  thoughts,  must  be  despe- 
rately wicked.  "  The  great  business  of  the  Christian  is  to 
oppose  and  mortify  these  corruptions,  which  remain  after 
conversion.  Hence  there  must  be  a  perpetual  conflict  be- 
tween the  flesh  and  the  spirit,  between  the  old  man  and  the 
new."  f 

*  See  "  Practical  Sermons,"  pp.  35,  36. 

•)•  The  writer  was  once  at  a  "  class  meeting,"  where  an  acquaintance  of  hia 
gave  very  much  such  "an  experience"  as  that  described  by  Dr.  Alexander.  Up 
to  this  poriod,  all  had  gone  on  prosperously,  but  the  announcement  of  such 
sad  imperfections  was  received  with  silence,  disturbed  perhaps  by  an  occa- 
sional groan.  My  friend  was  evidently  thought  to  be  a  backslider,  and  in 
danger  of  making  shipwreck. 


Let.  XII.  SINLESS   PERFECTION.  225 

Now  it  is  obvious  that  if  Dr.  Alexander,  in  these  extracts, 
describes  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  in  sanctifying  the  soul, 
the  genuine  experiences  of  growth  in  grace,  Arminian  Per- 
fectionism must  be  a  grievous  self-delusion.  Yet,  if  history 
record  any  truth,  it  is  that  every  distinguished  man  of  God, 
who  has  been  made  an  ornament  to  genuine  Christianity,  and 
a  rich  blessing  to  his  race,  from  the  fourth  to  the  eighteenth 
century,  has  had  just  such  experience  as  that  of  Dr.  Alexan- 
der. Such  were  Augustine,  Luther,  Calvin,  Melancthon, 
Turretine,  the  Erskines.  Whitefield,  Owen,  Baxter,  Edwards, 
Brainerd,  Payson,  M'Cheyne,  Chalmers,  and  many  others. 
We  wish  to  judge  no  man.  To  his  own  master  each  must 
stand  or  fall.  But  so  long  as  the  rational  mind  arrives  at  its 
decisions  by  trains  of  logical  deduction,  it  is  impossible  to 
avoid  the  inference  that  Perfectionism  is  only  another  name 
for  blindness  to  the  spirituality  of  the  law,  and  consequent 
self-deception  as  to  the  essence  of  scriptural  holiness.  As  the 
law  is  a  transcript  of  the  Divine  attributes,  the  Perfectionist 
will  be  constantly  liable  to  form  erroneous  conceptions  of 
God,  the  extent  of  his  righteous  recpiirernents,  and  his  in- 
finite hatred  of  sin. 

12.  It  is  easy  to  allege  with  Dr.  Clarke,  that  we  are  "  the 
advocates  of  sin,"  "  pleading  for  Baal,"  &c.  So  the  Univer- 
salist  charges  the  Arminian  with  being  the  friend  of  both 
endless  sin  and  misery;  and  the  Pelagian  claims  to  plead  for 
the  original  purity  of  fallen  man  !  We  plead  for  the  truth, 
by  which  alone  men  are  sanctified,  agreeably  to  the  prayer  of 
our  Saviour.  If  Perfectionism  be  a  gross  error,  it  must  bo 
the  patron  of  crime,  not  of  holiness. 

Scarcely  any  thing  in  this  whole  matter  is  more  surprising, 
than  the  strange  methods  by  which  such  writers  as  Dr.  Clarke 
impose  upon  themselves  in  battling  for  their  favorite  figment. 
Thus,  in  1  John  5  :  18,  we  read,  "  Whosoever  is  born  of  God 
sinneth  not."  "This,"  says  Dr.  Clarke,  "is  spoken  of  adult 
Christians,"  or  those  whom  Mr.  Wesley  calls  "  grown  Chris- 


226  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNIANISM.        Let.  XIII. 

tians,"  in  distinction  from  babes  in  Christ.  But  if  this  be 
true,  then  the  inspired  John  teaches  that  every  one  "  born 
of  God"  is  a  grown  Christian,  and  "  sinneth  not."  In  other 
words,  every  regenerate  person  is  "delivered  from  all  inward 
as  well  as  outward  sin !"  But  this  is  an  obvious  error,  as 
Arminians  will  admit.  Such  is  an  example  of  Dr.  Clarke's 
pleading  for  his  Baal  of  Perfectionism.  So  that  with  the 
"  Biblical  Repertory,"  we  are  tempted  to  believe  that  such 
Perfectionists  are  under  "a  peculiar  species  of  monomania, 
which  blinds  them  to  the  plain  deductions  of  common  sense."* 


LETTER    XIII. 

REGENERATION— CHARACTERISTICS  AND  FRUITS. 

Rev.  Sir — The  discussions  of  previous  Letters  prepare  us 
to  examine  that  "  great  supernatural  change,  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  effect  of  the  power  of  God,"f  that  "  effec- 
tual calling"  which  the  Scriptures  represent  as  of  the  essence 
of  true  piety  and  preparation  for  heaven. 

VII.  The  Difficulties  of  Methodism,  upon  the  Sub- 
ject of  Regeneration  and  the  Evidences  of  a  Change 
of  Heart. 

That  this  is  a  subject  of  immense  importance,  is  obvious  to 
all.  Conformity  to  the  Divine  pattern  is  the  only  method  to 
insure  either  comfort  or  safety  to  the  soul.  This  will  strike 
conviction  to  the  heart  of  the  secure  and  careless,  encourage 
the  feeble  Christian,  confirm  the  wavering,  and  expose  the 
hypocrite ;  but  forsaking  this  infallible  guide,  we  must  inevi- 
tably wander  into  the  most  extravagant  forms  of  delusion. 

*  For  July,  1842,  to  which  we  are  indebted  for  a  number  of  suggestions  in 
the  latter  part  of  this  Letter. 
t  Dr.  Witherspoon. 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  227 

Indeed,  upon  correctness  in  this  matter  are  suspended  tho 
peace,  purity,  and  general  welfare  of  the  Christian  church. 
How,  then,  is  this  subject  treated  among  Methodists  ? 

It  does  not  promise  well  that  among  their  twenty-five  "Ar- 
ticles of  Keligion,"  "  the  new  birth,"  like  the  doctrine  of 
Foreknowledge,  finds  no  place.  The  only  allusion  to  it  at  all, 
is  in  the  XVHth,  on  Baptism,  which  is  said  to  be  "  a  sign  of 
regeneration  or  the  new  birth."  But  whether  this  be  a 
change  of  external  state  from  the  world  to  church  member- 
ship,  or  a  far  deeper  and  more  radical  transformation  of 
nature,  "the  Articles"  leave  us  to  discover.  In  two  or 
three  other  places  in  the  "  Discipline,"  in  connection  with 
the  "form  of  Baptism,"  it  is  incidentally  mentioned  as  a 
being  "born  again,"  and  "born  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

AVe  naturally  judge  of  the  acknowledged  importance  of  this 
great  essential  of  the  Christian  life,  by  the  prominence  it 
holds  in  the  Arminian  standards.  We  must  conclude,  there- 
fore, that  "purgatory,"  "speaking  in  unknown  tongues," 
"the  marriage  of  ministers,"  and  "Christian  men's  goods," 
are  much  more  essential  in  true  religion  than  "  the  new 
birth" — each  of  the  former  having  a  separate  "  Article"  to 
expound  and  enforce  its  importance  !  Let  us  take  a  closer 
view  of  the  subject. 

1.  Of  the  nature  of  this  change  Messrs.  "Wesley  and  Clarke 
appear  to  hold  conflicting  sentiments.  Mr.  W.  says,  "  It  is  a 
great  change  which  God  works  in  the  soul,  *  *  *  when 
he  raises  it  from  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life  of  righteousness." 
"It  is  not  the  same  thing  with  sanctification" — "which  is  a 
progressive  work,  carried  on  in  the  soul  by  slow  degrees." 
"  The  new  birth  is  a  part  of  sanctification,  not  the  whole.  It  is 
the  gate  of  it,  the  entrance  into  it."*  This  is  scriptural  and 
true.  Now  hear  Dr.  Clarke.  Commenting  on  John  3  : 3, 
"  Ye  must  be  horn  again,"  he  says:  "The  new  birth  here 
spoken  of,  comprehends  not  only  what  is  termed  justification 
*  Sermon  on  the  New  Birth. 


228  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.        Let.  XIII. 

or  pardon,  but  also  sanctification  or  holiness" — "  the  renew- 
ings  of  the  whole  soul  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness." 
So  when  speaking  of  the  text,  "  Whoso  is  bom  of  God  sin- 
neth  not,"  he  says  it  means  "  adult  Christians  *  *  *  who 
are  cleansed  from  all  sin."  In  other  words,  "  whoso  is  born 
of  God  is  cleansed  from  all  sin !"  Mr.  Wesley,  however,  as 
before  quoted,  says  "  this  new  birth,  is  the  gate  or  entrance  to 
sanctification,  which  is  progressive,  and  carried  on  by  slow 
degrees."  As  these  statements  are  diametrically  opposed  to 
each  other,  they  cannot  both  be  true. 

2.  Arminian  writers  contradict  themselves  in  other  aspects 
of  this  subject.  Mr.  Wesley  says — "  All  men  are  by  nature 
not  only  sick,  but  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  and  it  is  not 
possible  for  them  to  do  anything  well,  till  God  raise  them  from 
the  dead."*  But  Watson  affirms  that  "  God  has  appointed 
this  change  (new  birth)  to  be  effected  in  answer  to  our  pray- 
ers ;  that  acceptable  prayer  supposes  we  desire  tli6  blessings 
we  ask,  that  we  accept  of  Christ  as  the  appointed  medium  of 
access  to  God,  *  *  *  and  that  we  exercise  faith  in  the 
promises  of  God."  "  All  these,"  he  adds,  "  suppose  regen- 
eration to  be  a  good  in  prospect"^  (not  in  possession).  Was 
there  ever  a  more  positive  contradiction !  The  unregenerate, 
according  to  Watson,  prays,  desires  the  blessings  of  "  the 
new  birth,"  accepts  of  Christ  as  the  way  to  the  Father,  and 
exercises  faith  in  the  Divine  promises.  Yet  Mr.  Wesley  af- 
firms that  the  unregenerate  are  dead  in  sin,  and  cannot  do 
anything  well,  until  they  are  renewed.  Of  course  it  follows, 
that  faith,  prayer  in  the  name  of  Christ,  &c.  being  performed 
by  the  unrenewed,  are  "not  anything  well!"  How,  then, 
can  such  bad  actions  lead  to  the  new  birth  ? 

3.  Mr.  Watson  tells  us,  "  that  the  preparatory  process 
which  leads  to  regeneration,  commences  with  conviction  and 
contrition  and  goes  on  to  a  repentant  turning  to  the  Lord." 
Dr.  Fisk  adopts  the  same  view  :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  exerts 

*  Sermon  on  Working  out  Salvation.         +  Inst,  part  2,  chap.  24. 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  229 

this  regenerating  power  on  conditions  to  be  first  complied 
with."  *  *  *  u  Repentance  and  faith  arc  supposed  to  bo 
the  gospel  conditions — antecedents  to  regeneration."  *  *  * 
u  We  must  repent  in  order  to  be  renewed."*  But  if  "faith 
and  repentance"  may  be  exercised  by  an  xinregeneratc  person, 
then  such  a  man  may  be  saved  without  regeneration — for  "  he 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved."  And  if  a  person  "dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins"  may  have  true  faith  and  repe?itance} 
why  not  all  the  other  graces  of  the  Spirit?  But  Mr.  Wesley 
truly  says — "  Holiness  cannot  commence  in  the  soul  till  that 
change  (regeneration)  be  wrought,  *  *  *  till  we  are 
brought  from  darkness  to  light,  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto 
God;  till  we  are  born  of  God."f  Which  of  these  contra- 
dictory authorities  are  viewed  as  teaching  the  true  Arminian 
gospel,  we  do  not  pretend  to  decide. 

4.  Such  being  the  doctrine  as  taught  by  Arminians,  we 
proceed  to  its  practical  developments.  Enter  their  houses  of 
worship,  attend  their  camp  meetings,  class  meetings,  &c.  and 
truly  it  will  demand  a  discerning  eye  to  discover  the  feeblest 
resemblance  to  the  humility,  meekness,  docility,  acquaintance 
with  Scripture,  and  knowledge  of  the  human  heart  and  the 
Christian  warfare,  required  by  the  Saviour  and  his  Apostles. 
Inquire  of  their  converts  the  evidence  of  a  saving  change  ;  and 
instead  of  that  clear,  intelligent  disclosure  of  the  operations 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  awaking,  convincing,  humbling,  per- 
suading, and  pointing  to  a  Redeemer's  blood,  you  will  receive 
a  confused  statement  of  "getting  religion,"  amid  loud  noise 
and  confusion  of  tongues,  more  like  a  religious  Babel  than 
the  city  of  God.  Investigate  still  further  the  ground  of 
their  hope,  and  you  will  receive,  not  a  statement  of  Christian 
faith,  a  simple,  consolatory,  heart-purifying  dependence  upon 
the  atoning  blood  and  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  but  a 
declaration  of  bold  assurance,  of  self-confidence,  and  m:iny 

*Calvinistic  Controversy,  No.  15. 
f  Sermon  on  the  New  Birth. 

20 


230  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIII. 

unequivocal  signs  of  a  deceived  heart.*  Instead  of  self- 
knowledge,  a  deep  acquaintance  with  the  errors,  corruptions, 
and  various  devices  of  the  human  heart,  you  will  hear  of 
Christian  perfection  and  a  continued  willingness  to  die.  In- 
stead of  a  meek  reliance  upon  the  Saviour's  merits  and  the 
Spirit's  aid,  you  will  be  told  that  "  God  is  merciful,  and  if  I 
only  persevere  and  keep  straight  on  in  the  path  of  duty,  God 
will  continue  to  bless  me  in  prayer,  and  all  will  be  well  at 
last." 

The  extensive  prevalence  in  that  denomination  of  the  most 
mischievous  errors  respecting  the  new  birth,  flows  principally 
from  the  defective  and  unscriptural  representations  made  by 
their  religious  teachers.  What,  for  example,  is  better  adapted 
to  mislead  a  serious  inquirer,  than  the  following  statements 
respecting  faith.  "  Faith  necessarily  implies  an  assurance 
that  Christ  loved  me  and  gave  himself  for  me."  Wes.  Serm. 
vol.  i.  p.  209.  Again  :  "  Whoever  has  a  sure  confidence  in 
God,  that  through  the  merits  of  Christ  his  sins  are  forgiven, 
he  is  a  child  of  God."  Doct.  Tracts,  p.  300.  In  the  first 
passage,  the  young  or  feeble  Christian  is  told,  that  until  ho 
has  a  full  assurance  of  the  love  of  Christ,  he  remains  an 
enemy  of  God;  and  in  the  second,  the  formalist  and  hypocrite 
who  have  worked  themselves  into  a  strong  confidence  of  the 
Divine  favor,  are  assured  that  they  are  children  of  God."}" 
Under  such  instruction  with  regard  to  the  u  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,"  we  need  not  be  surprised  at  the  grossest  mistakes 
respecting  his  gracious  work  upon  the  heart. 

*  It  is  cheerfully  admitted  that  some  parts  of  this  picture  may  be  rather 
strongly  colored  for  certain  localities,  particularly  our  cities  and  large 
villages.     Notwithstanding,  "  we  speak  that  we  do  know." 

f  And  yet  Wesloy  elsewhere  flatly  contradicts  himself  in  the  above  asser- 
tion, and  writes  in  the  following  scriptural  style:  "What  is  saving  faith? 
I  dare  not  say  that  it  is  only  believing  confidently  my  sins  are  forgiven  me 
for  Christ's  sake ;  for  if  I  live  in  sin,  that  belief  is  a  destructive  conceit." 
Doct.  Tracts,  p.  232.  A  man  of  Wesley's  loose  views  and  rapid  pen,  ought 
to  have  had  at  least  a  good  memory. 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  231 

Nor  is  the  doctrine  of  grace,  as  taught  by  these  Arminians, 
at  all  better  adapted  to  foster  aught  but  a  spurious  piety. 
In  reply  to  the  position  that  "God  might  justly  have  passed 
by  all  men,"  Wesley  says,  "Are  you  sure  he  might?  I 
cannot  find  it  in  the  word  of  God.  Therefore  I  reject  it  as  a 
bold,  precarious  assertion."  "That  God  might  justly,  for 
my  unfaithfulness  to  his  grace,  have  given  me  up  long  ago,  I 
grant;  but  this  supposes  me  to  have  had  that  grace,"  &c. 
Doct.  Tracts,  p.  25.  Which  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  God 
could  not  justly  have  punished  mankind  without  providing  a 
Saviour,  and  through  him,  sufficient  grace  for  them — that 
although  it  will  be  just  in  him  to  punish  for  "unfaithfulness 
to  his  grace,"  yet  to  inflict  the  penalty  of  his  broken  law, 
without  first  providing  grace  for  sinners,  would  be  unjust.  In 
other  words,  that  God's  infinite  grace  in  giving  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,  was  not  an  act  of  grace  at  all,  but  an  act  of  simple 
justice  !  Could  anything  be  more  suited  to  cherish  pride 
and  self-sufficiency  in  the  human  heart  ? 

What  Christian  mind  but  will  revolt,  and  even  shudder, 
whilst  perusing  the  following  passage  from  the  same  volume. 
Speaking  of  Christian  perfection,  "  We  know,"  says  Wesley, 
"that  God  may,  with  man's  good  leave,  cut  short  his  work,  in 
whatever  degree  he  pleases,  and  do  the  usual  work  of  many 
years  in  a  moment."  We  submit  to  every  candid  and  intel- 
ligent man,  whether  the  spiritual  instruction,  of  which  the 
above  is  a  specimen,  may  not,  a  priori,  be  expected  to  pro- 
duce, not  the  fair  and  glorious  lineaments  of  the  image  of 
God,  but  a  monstrous  abortion  of  everything  like  genuine 
piety.  Nor  will  the  authorized  test  of  such  religion  be  more 
rational  and  scriptural  than  the  thing  itself. 

From  some  things  which  follow  in  the  present  Letter,  I 
cheerfully  acknowledge  that  there  are  many  honorable  ex- 
ceptions, especially  among  the  more  intelligent  and  better 
educated  Methodists.  We  speak  of  Arminian  Methodism 
fully  developed,  not  as  she  is  modified  and  restrained  by  the 


232  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.        Let.  XIII. 

proximity  and  social  influence  of  other  bodies  of  Christians, 
or  under  check  from  educational  and  other  similar  causes. 

VIII.  The  Difficulties  of  Methodism,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  Characteristics  of  a  Genuine  Work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

We  charge  that  your  system  as  fully  worked  out  in  this 
country,  encourages  its  advocates  to  place  much  confidence  in 
certain  wild  and  disorderly  proceedings  which,  as  they  are  at 
an  infinite  remove  from  the  "  reasonable  service  "  of  true  piety, 
so  are  they  expressly  condemned  by  the  Wesleys  and  others,  the 
wisest  and  best  of  the  sect.  Reference  is  here  had  to  those 
scenes  of  confusion  so  common  in  that  denomination — jumping, 
falling,  screaming,  swooning,  shouting  Glory,  glory,  glory,  clap- 
ping the  hands,  &c.  With  these  exercises,  nature  is,  in  frequent 
instances,  completely  exhausted ;  the  person  lies  in  a  state 
of  collapse  for  many  hours,  and  is  said  to  be  highly  favored 
with  the  overpowering  influences  of  the  Spirit.  Some  are 
seen  ascending  saplings,  or  whatever  object  stands  most  con- 
venient, "  climbing  up  to  heaven  to  see  Jesus."  Others  are 
engaged  in  laughing,  throwing  back  the  body,  swinging  the 
arms  at  full  sweep,  rolling  on  the  ground,  &c.  To  work  the 
minds  of  the  people  up  to  such  a  pitch  of  frenzy  (I  can  call 
it  nothing  else),  is  manifestly  a  principal  object  at  camp-meet- 
ings, and  a  main  design  of  all  the  machinery  of  enthusiasm 
employed  upon  such  occasions.  But  let  any  intelligent  reader 
of  the  Scriptures  ask  himself,  "  Where  do  we  find  examples 
of  all  this  in  the  Bible  V  Is  it  in  the  case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  ? 
But  even  he  was  not  bereft  of  his  senses,  or  presence  of 
mind ;  for  he  conversed  intelligently  with  Jesus.  Nor  was 
he  converted  until  three  days  after  meeting  with  Christ  on 
the  way  to  Damascus,  when  visited  by  Ananias  by  Divine 
direction.  Besides  let  Methodism  exhibit  the  appearance  of 
the  Son  of  God  in  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  a  similar  mi- 
raculous splendor,  the  same  supernatural  voice,  and  we  will 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  233 

believe  her  prostrations  to  be  caused  by  the  same  power 
which  struck  with  consternation  the  persecuting  Saul.  In- 
deed we  may  safely  challenge  the  advocates  of  this  system  to 
produce  a  solitary  example  of  conversion,  under  the  preaching 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  bearing  even  a  distant  resemblance 
to  the  jumping,  jerking,  falling  down,  rolling  on  the  ground, 
clapping  of  hands,  loud  laughing,  and  swooning  away  into  a 
senseless  or  pulseless  condition,  which  are  such  frequent  and 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  Methodism.  But  perhaps 
the  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  were  not  such  powerful  preachers 
as  some  of  the  present  day  !  We  hold  steadfastly  that  all 
true  religion  begins  and  is  carried  on  by  the  Divine  Spirit, 
experienced  in  the  heart ;  but  this  is  perfectly  distinct  from 
the  natural  agitation  of  the  passions,  into  which  it  seems  the 
object  of  the  Methodist  leaders  to  lash  the  minds  of  their 
members.  "  We  can  see  no  Divine  power  in  the  mechanical 
groan  and  the  periodical  '  Amen,'  without  which  they  think 
their  meetings  lifeless.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  that 
Christ  and  the  Apostles  encouraged  those  tumultuous  assem- 
blies in  which  numbers  are  at  the  same  moment  uttering 
petitions  with  stentorian  voice,  and  others  are  going  about 
among  the  people,  urging  them  to  cry  out  till  their  nerves  are 
wrought  upon  to  screeching,  swooning,  and  various  hysterical 
affections.  When  attempts  are  made  to  impose  this  on  the 
world  for  religion,  serious  Christians  will  be  disposed  to  weep, 
and  the  rest  of  mankind  to  laugh." 

It  is  not  intended  to  follow  the  defenders  of  these  exercises 
in  their  attempts  to  enlist  the  Bihle  in  favor  of  "  confusion." 
A  specimen  or  two  of  their  logic,  is  all  that  our  limits  will 
permit  For  example,  they  quote  a  number  of  passages  con- 
taining the  words  "rejoice,  shout,  shout  aloud,"  &c. ;  but 
they  forget  that  an  equal  number  of  texts  may  be  adduced, 
exhorting  "  to  keej)  silence,  be  still,"  &c.  The  strong  imagery 
of  such  passages  is  best  explained  by  others,  such  as  Ps.  68  : 
8 — "  The  mountains  and  the  hills  shall  break  forth  before 
20* 


234  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.        Let.  XIII. 

you  into  singing,  and  all  the  trees  of  the  field  shall  clap  their 
hands."  In  like  manner,  when  they  cite  various  texts  which 
represent  persons  as  "  leaping  and  walking,  leaping  for  joy, 
falling  down  on  the  face,"  &c.  they  have  only  shown,  what 
no  one  will  question,  "that  the  expressions  of  submission, 
homage  and  reverence,  always  have  been,  and  still  are,  carried 
to  a  great  degree  of  extravagance  in  the  eastern  countries." 
So  also  dancing  was  a  common  act  of  devotion  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation  —  but  did  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
ever  dance?  But  perhaps  the  most  singular  specimen  of 
reasoning  from  Scripture  in  defense  of  these  extravagances 
of  Methodism,  remains  to  be  stated.  A  writer  refers  to  the 
scenes  of  Pentecost,  when  some  said  of  the  Apostles,  "  these 
men  are  full  of  new  wine,"  and  sagely  reasons  thus  :  "  Now, 
as  drunken  men  are  generally  '  wild  and  disorderly/  there 
must  have  been  something  in  the  proceedings  of  those  referred 
to  that  induced  these  beholders  to  conclude  they  were  drunk  !" 
This,  we  believe,  out-Methodizes  Methodism  !  The  Apostles 
acted  in  such  a  manner  as  led  the  people  to  think  they  were 
drunk!  Camp  and  quarterly  meetings  will  not  stand  in  the 
comparison ;  no  person  ever  suspects  their  extravagance  to 
be  the  fruit  of  intoxication.  But  is  it  possible  this  interpreter 
of  Holy  Writ  can  discover  no  other  pretext  for  the  charge  of 
drunkenness  made  against  the  Apostles,  than  that  they  be- 
haved as  if  they  were  drunk  I  Has  it  entirely  escaped  his 
notice  that  they  were  empowered  to  speak  in  languages 
different  from  their  vernacular  tongue  ?  And  that  being 
known  as  Jews  of  the  common  sort,  they  were  supposed  to 
be  uttering  the  incoherent  ravings  of  intemperance,  by  those 
who  understood  them  not  ?  This  solution  is  at  least  rather 
more  respectful  to  that  sacred  impulse  by  which  they  were 
directed,  than  the  supposition  that  the  Apostles  acted  like 
drunken  men! 

The  effects  produced  by  the  tremendous  enginery  of  con- 
version, employed  upon  the  great  occasions,  are  surprising 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  235 

only  because  they  are  so  small.  Preaching,  praying,  singing, 
loud  vociferation,  earnest  exhortation,  many  tears — all  min- 
gled together  and  vehemently  enforced  with  violent  gesticula- 
tion—  great  exhaustion  of  bodily  strength  and  consequent 
derangement  of  the  nervous  system — the  darkness  and  gloom 
of  the  scenery  at  night,  contrasting  with  the  bright  reflection 
from  numerous  gleaming  fires — the  oft  repeated  representation 
of  the  judgment  day,  as  exhibited  in  the  separation  of  those 
who  crowd  the  altar  from  those  who  are  left  without — these 
and  a  thousand  other  devices  to  strike  the  imagination,  render 
it  only  a  matter  of  surprise,  that  among  the  mixed  multitude 
who  flock  to  camp  meetings,  so  few  are  sufficiently  deranged 
in  body  and  bewildered  in  mind  to  go  through  the  exercise 
of  camp-conversion.  Examples  indeed  are  not  uncommon  of 
persons  being  caught  in  this  whirlwind  of  the  passions,  and 
afterward  confessing  with  shame  that  they  were  totally  beside 
themselves,  and  knew  not  what  they  were  doing.*  That  such 
measures  are  at  least  as  well  adapted  to  promote  the  cause 
of  error  and  fanaticism,  as  that  of  truth  and  righteousness,  is 
evident.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Miller,  in  his  Letters  to  Presbyterians, 
states  the  fact,  "  that  one  of  the  far-famed  fanatical  Unita- 
rians, called  Chrystians,  boasted  that  he  had  drawn  at  least 
fifty  persons  to  anxious  seats,  merely  by  the  influence  of  his 
own  singing" — an  agent,  as  is  well  known,  of  vast  power  in 
Methodism.  And  there  is  much  reason  to  fear  that  a  large 
proportion  of  what  is  called  mourning  and  conversion  in  that 
denomination,  is  to  be  traced  to  a  cause  equally  removed 
from  "the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus." 

In  confirmation  of  these  statements,  we  quote  from  some 
essays  on  "  Practical  Methodism,"  originally  published  in 
the  "Christian  Advocate,"  a  monthly  magazine  edited  by 
the  late  venerable  Ashbel  Green,  D.  D.  These  essays  are  by 
common  consent  attributed  to  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  (now  Dr.) 
N.  Murray,  better  known  as  "  Kirwan."  Speaking  of  the 
*  A  case  of  this  kind  tamo  uudor  my  own  observation. 


236  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNIANISM.       Let.  XIII. 

converts  made  at  camp  meetings  and  similar  gatherings, 
he  says  :  "  Whilst  some  have  honored  their  profession  by  a 
life  of  godliness,  I  have  known  many  others  to  return  to 
the  beggarly  elements  of  the  world.  Four  or  five  years  since, 
in  the  town  adjoining  that  in  which  I  live,  about  one  hundred 
were  converted,  or,  to  use  Methodist  language,  got  religion  at 
a  camp  meeting.  At  this  time  scarcely  one  of  them  maintains 
a  character  of  piety."  "  It  is  not  a  very  uncommon  circum- 
stance to  hear  an  individual  exclaim,  at  these  meetings,  that 
he  has  '  got  religion,'  and  to  see  him,  before  he  gets  home, 
quite  drunk.  And  a  more  common  circumstance  is,  to  see 
them  '  brought  out  with  power,'  and  to  hear  them  pray  and 
exhort  and  shout ;  and  a  few  months  afterward,  to  hear  them 
say  that  l  religion  is  all  a  hoax.'  To  these  things,"  adds  the 
writer,  "  I  can  testify." 

But  what  say  the  wisest  and  best  of  the  fraternity  upon 
these  subjects  ?  Mr.  Fletcher,  author  of  the  Checks,  thus 
writes  to  Charles  Wesley,  under  date  of  November  22d, 
1762  :  "I  have  heard  the  melancholy  news  of  many  of  our 
brethren  overshooting  sober  and  steady  Christianity  in  Lon- 
don. Oh  !  that  I  could  stand  in  the  gap,  and  by  sacrificing 
myself  shut  this  immense  abyss  of  enthusiasm.  The  corrup- 
tion of  the  best  things  is  the  worst  of  corruptions.  Allowing 
but  half  of  the  report  is  true,  the  rest  shows  that  spiritual 
pride,  pi'esumption,  arrogance,  stubbornness,  party  spirit, 
uncharitableness,  prophetic  mistakes — in  short,  every  sinew 
of  enthusiasm  is  at  work  in  many  of  that  body."  The 
following  are  the  words  of  Charles  Wesley  upon  the  same 
subject :  "  To-day  one  came,  who  was  pleased  to  fall  into  a  fit 
for  my  entertainment.  He  beat  himself  heartily.  I  thought 
it  a  pity  to  hinder  him  ;  so  instead  of  singing  over  him,  as 
had  often  been  done,  we  left  him  to  recover  at  his  leisure.  A 
girl,  as  she  began  to  cry,  I  ordered  to  be  carried  out.  Her 
convulsions  were  so  violent  as  to  take  away  the  use  of  her 
limbs,  till  they  laid  her  without  at  the  door,  when  she  immedi- 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  237 

ately  found  her  legs  and  walked  off.  Some  very  unstill  sisters, 
who  all  took  care  to  stand  near  me,  and  tried  who  could  cry 
the  loudest,  have  been  as  quiet  as  Iambs,  since  I  have  had 
them  removed  out  of  my  sight.  The  first  night  I  preached 
there,  half  my  words  were  lost  through  their  outcries.  Last 
night  I  gave  public  notice,  that  whosoever  cried  so  as  to 
drown  my  voice,  should  be  quietly  carried  to  the  farthest  cor- 
ner of  the  room.  But  my  porter  had  no  employ  the  whole 
night."  Would  Charles  Wesley  have  spoken  thus,  if  he  had 
considered  these  things  the  tokens  of  a  work  of  God? 

It  is  well  known  that  laughter  is  no  uncommon  phenome- 
non among  the  Methodists.  Mr.  John  Wesley  describes  a 
scene  of  this  sort :  "  We  called  at  a  house  *  *  *  where 
we  found  several  rejoicing  in  God,  and  several  mourning 
after  him.  While  I  prayed  with  them,  many  crowded  into 
the  house,  some  of  whom  burst  into  a  strange  involuntary 
laughter,  so  that  my  voice  could  scarce  be  heard,  and  when  I 
strove  to  speak  louder,  a  sudden  hoarseness  seized  me.  Then 
the  laughter  increased.  I  perceived  it  was  Satan,  and  re- 
solved to  pray  on.  Immediately  the  Lord  rebuked  him,  that 
laughter  was  at  an  end,  and  so  was  my  hoarseness."  In  an7 
other  place  he  says  both  he  and  his  brother  Charles  were 
seized  with  this  "  loud  laughter;"  "nor  could  we  possibly  re- 
frain, though  we  were  ready  to  tear  ourselves  in  pieces."  * 

Mr.  Wesley  discovered  these  workings  of  Satan  also  among 
the  mountains  of  Wales.  Speaking  of  the  movements  in  that 
quarter  he  says : 

"  Some  give  out  a  verse,  which  they  sing  over  and  over 
again  with  all  their  might,  thirty  or  forty  times.  Meanwhile 
some  are  violently  agitated,  and  they  leap  up  and  down  in  all 
manner  of  postures  for  hours."  He  adds:  "I  think  there 
needs  no  great  penetration  to  understand  this.  They  are 
honest,  upright  men,  who  really  love  God  in  their  hearts; 
but  they  have  little  experience  either  of  the  ways  of  God  or 
*  Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  35,  39  j  vol.  iii.  p.  183. 


238  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIII. 

of  the  devices  of  Satan.  So  he  (Sataii)  serves  himself  of  their 
simplicity,  in  order  to  wear  them  out  and  to  bring  discredit 
on  the  work  of  God."  * 

Mr.  Wesley,  in  vol.  five  of  his  Journal,  says :  "  Many  have 
been  awakened,  justified  and  perfected  in  love;  but  even 
while  full  of  love,  Satan  drives  many  of  them  to  extrava- 
gance. This  appears  in  several  instances  :  1.  Frequently 
three  or  four,  yea,  ten  or  twelve,  PRAY  ALOUD  together. 
2.  Some,  perhaps  many,  scream  altogether  as  loud  as  they 
possibly  can ;  several  drop  down  as  dead,  and  are  as  stiff  as 
a  corpse,  but  in  a  while  they  start  up  and  cry,  Glory,  glory, 
perhaps  twenty  times  together.  Just  so  (he  adds)  do  the 
French  Prophets,  and  very  lately  the  Jumpers  in  Wales,  bring 
the  real  work  into  contempt." 

In  the  third  volume  of  his  works,  Mr.  W.  tells  of  his  vis- 
iting one  of  these  French  Prophets.  "  She  leaned  back  in 
her  chair  and  seemed  to  have  strong  workings  in  her  breast, 
with  deep  sighings  intermixed.  Her  head  and  hands  and,  by 
turns,  every  part  of  her  body  seemed  to  be  in  a  kind  of  con- 
vulsive motion."  "This  continued  about  ten  minutes,  *  * 
then  she  spoke  much,  all  as  in  the  person  of  God,  of  the  ful- 
filling of  the  prophecies,  the  coming  of  Christ  now  at  hand, 
and  the  spread  of  the  gospel  over  all  the  earth.  Then  she 
exhorted  us  not  to  be  in  haste  in  judging  her  spirit  to  be  or 
not  to  be  of  God,"  &c.  "  Two  or  three  of  our  company  were 
much  affected,  and  believed  she  spake  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
But  this,"  adds  Mr.  W.  "was  by  no  means  clear  to  me. 
The  motion  might  be  either  hysterical  or  artificial.  And  the 
same  words  any  person  of  a  good  understanding  and  well 
versed  in  Scripture,  might  have  spoken."  Afterward  he  tells 
of  "  one  who  did  run  well,  till  hindered  by  some  of  those  who 
were  called  French  Prophets."  This  led  him  to  preach 
against  their  delusions. 

Again  :  Mr.  Wesley  objects  to  such  bodily  exercises  on 
*  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  157. 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  239 

the  score  of  decency.  In  bis  sermon  on  "Knowing  Christ 
after  the  flesh,"  he  remarks  :  "But  some  may  say,  refraining 
from  these  warm  expressions  may  check  the  fervor  of  devo- 
tion. It  is  very  possible  it  may,  such  fervor  as  has  passed 
for  devotion.  It  may  prevent  loud  shouting,  horrid  unnatural 
screaming,  repeating  the  same  words  twenty  or  thirty  times, 
jumping  two  or  three  feet  high,  throwing  about  the  legs  and 
arms  of  men  and  women,  not  only  shocking  to  religion,  but  to 
common  decency  I  But  it  will  never  check,  much  less  pre- 
vent, true  scriptural  devotion."  Serm.  vol.  iii.  p.  26G.  What 
would  Mr.  Wesley  have  said,  could  he  have  attended  some 
of  our  Methodist  meetings,  especially  our  camp  meetings, 
where  all  these  phenomena,  accounted  by  him  disorderly,  and 
the  work  of  the  devil,  are  confidently  taken  by  his  professed 
followers  to  be  indubitable  evidence  of  the  power  of  God  ? 
On  the  subject  of  the  indecency  of  these  things,  another  of 
the  Methodist  society  declares,  "  I  myself  have  actually  wit- 
nessed an  unconsciousness  of  the  most  indelicate  female  atti- 
tudes even  in  the  house  of  God."  These  facts,  Rev.  Sir,  and 
others  of  the  same  or  equal  authenticity,  which  we  suppress, 
are  not  reported  by  the  slanderers  of  Methodism,  but  by  her 
decided  friends  and  advocates.  They  are  now  published  with 
feelings  very  different  from  those  of  pleasure;  but  the  impe- 
rious demands  of  truth  seem  to  require  the  full  exposure  of 
this  corrupt  system. 

Speaking  of  these  " bodily  emotions,"  Mr.  Wesley  says: 
"The  essence  of  religion  is  quite  independent  of  them."  "I 
always  ascribe  these  symptoms  to  Satan  tearing  them." 
"  Some  were  buffeted  of  Satan  in  an  unusual  manner,  by 
such  a  spirit  of  laughter  as  they  could  in  no  wise  resist."  * 
He  also  found  it  necessary  to  warn  all  such  persons  "  not  to 
judge  of  the  spirit  whereby  any  one  spoke,  by  any  dreams, 
visions,  or  revelations  made  to  their  souls,  any  more  than  by 
their  tears,  or  any  involuntary  effects  wrought  upon  their 
*  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  560 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  69. 


240  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.       Let.  XIII. 

bodies."*  And  in  his  tract  on  "Christian  Perfection:" 
"  Give  no  place  to  a  heated  imagination.  Do  not  easily  sup- 
pose dreams,  voices,  impressions,  visions,  to  be  from  God. 
They  may  be  from  him ;  they  may  be  from  nature ;  they  may 
be  from  the  devil."  "  You  are  in  danger  of  enthusiasm  every 
hour,  if  you  despise  or  lightly  esteem  reason,  knowledge,  or 
human  learning;  every  one  of  which  is  an  excellent  gift  of 
God,  and  may  serve  the  noblest  purposes."  And  let  it 
check  that  fond  dependence  upon  imaginary  visions  and  voices 
from  above,  on  which  so  many  build  their  hopes  of  Divine 
acceptance,  to  know  that  by  the  same  test  the  author  of  one 
of  the  worst  productions  of  infidelity  has  claimed  the  seal  of 
heaven  to  his  profane  speculations."}" 

In  reference  to  these  proofs  of  Mr.  Wesley's  opposition  to 
such  extravagances,  the  late  Dr.  Archibald  Alexander  wrote 
to  the  author,  that  "  he  (Mr.  W.)  had  patronized,  at  one  period 
of  his  life,  almost  every  species  of  disorder  in  public  worship, 
even  when  in  England  it  was  carried  to  its  greatest  extremes." 
It  is  sad  to  think  that  he  who  could  write  so  scripturally  and 
judiciously  on  these  subjects,  should  afterward  destroy  the 
faith  and  order  he  once  upheld  ! 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  testimony  of  one  or  two  of  the  lead- 
ing moderns,  in  relation  to  these  departures  from  scriptural 
simplicity  and  sobriety.  Adam  Clarke's  preaching  is  thus 
described  by  Lorenzo  Dow,  in  his  Journal  of  July  20,  1806  : 
"  The  sermon  was  well  delivered  in  speech,  though  there 
appeared  much  deadness  at  the  beginning ;  but  in  his  last 
prayer  he  grew  somewhat  fervent,  until  God  began  to  send 
down  his  power,  and  there  began  a  move  among  the  people, 
when  he  seemed  to  lower,  as  if  to  ward  off  the  move  and  pre- 
vent NOISE." 

Lorenzo  also  bears  the  following  testimony  :  "  I  saw  Adam 
Clarke — he  acknowledged  to  me  that  he  was  once  in  the  spirit 

*  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  141. 

f  Lord  Herbert.     See  "  Leland's  View  of  the  Deistical  Writers,"  p.  20. 


Let.  XIII.  REGENERATION.  241 

of  the  great  revival  in  Cornwall,  &c.  '  But  now/  said  the 
Doctor,  '  I  sec  better.'  His  mind  was  made  up  agaiust  the 
camp-meetings  in  America  as  being  improper,  and  the  revival 
attending  them  as  a  thing  accountable  upon  natural  princi- 
ples." With  respect  to  noise  in  public  worship,  it  seems  "the 
English  connexion  in  general  are  determined  to  prevent  it,  as 
appears  from  their  conduct  and  publication  in  their  magazine." 
These  are  understood  to  be  the  prevailing  feeling  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Methodists  of  Great  Britain.  "  Charles  Wesley 
and  John  Fletcher  were  converted  at  their  own  bedside  and 
alone  :  John  Wesley  while  sitting  in  a  church  hearing  the 
reading  of  Luther's  preface  to  the  Romans  :  Dr.  Coke  in  his 
pulpit  while  preaching  to  others.  Both  Charles  Wesley  and 
John  Fletcher  say  they  felt  no  great  emotions  of  joy ;  and 
Dr.  Coke  and  John  Wesley  were  so  tranquil,  that  none  but 
themselves  were  at  the  time  acquainted  with  the  change." 
Such  is  the  decided  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  and  best 
friends  of  the  system  against  the  very  abuses  which  are  in 
this  country  boldly  published  and  propagated  as  Christianity  j 
as  in  fact  the  essence  and  highest  excellence  of  that  religion, 
which  is  the  noblest  offspring  of  him  who  is  "  a  God  of  order 
and  not  of  confusion."  We  scarcely  need  notice  the  feeble 
attempt  which  has  been  made  to  invalidate  this  testimony  by 
alleging  the  frequent  examples  of  reformation  from  gross  vice 
in  connection  with  these  abuses.  The  fanatical  Unitarians, 
called  Christians,  at  their  great  meetings,  have  their  mourn- 
ers' benches,   women  pray  in  public,*  old  backsliders   are 

*  The  Methodists,  as  is  well  known,  encourage  their  women  to  pray  and 
exhort  in  their  public  assemblies.  The  following  is  Wesley's  comment  on 
1  Cor.  14  :  34,  35  :  "Lot  your  women  keep  silence  in  the  church,"  &c.  "  It 
is  a  shame  for  women  to  speak  in  the  church."  "  Robert  Barclay  indeed 
says,  'Paul  hero  only  reproves  the  inconsiderate  and  talkative  icomen.'  But 
the  text  says  no  such  thing.  It  evidently  speaks  of  women  in  general. 
Again:  The  Apostle  Paul  saith  to  Timothy,  'Let  your  women  learn  in  si- 
lence with  all  subjection  :  For  I  suffer  not  a  woman  to  teach,  nor  to  usurp 
authority  over  the  man  (which  public  teaching  necessarily  implies),  but  to 

21 


242  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIV. 

reclaimed  and  drunkards  reformed.  Do  these  results  stamp 
error  and  extravagance  with  the  image  of  truth,  or  sanction 
the  denial  of  the  supreme  divinity  of  him  who  is  "  God  over 
all  blessed  for  evermore  V 


LETTER  XIV. 

CAMP  MEETINGS  AND  OTHER  PROSELYTING  MEASURES. 

Rev.  Sir — We  are  informed  in  your  Discipline,  that  "  God's 
design  in  raising  up  the  preachers  called  Methodists  in  Amer- 
ica, was  to  reform  the  continent  and  spread  Scripture  holiness 
over  these  lands."  This  is  quite  modest,  and  if  there  be  any 
one  aspect  of  this  great  work,  which  is  more  than  all  others 
peculiar  and  distinctive,  it  is  found  in  your  "  labors  of  love" 
toward  the  poor  benighted  Calvinists!  Thus  says  Mr.  Ste- 
vens in  his  history,  when  Methodism  made  its  first  entrance 
at  Lynn  (Mass.),  "  it  came  as  a  protest  against  the  tenets  of 
pre-election,  pre-reprobation,  final  perseverance,  infant  dam- 
nation, &c."  (p.  41.)  "  No  church,"  he  adds,  "preaches  more 
staunchly  against  Calvinism,  Universalism,  &c. ;  yet  the  op- 
posite doctrines  are  nowhere  stated  in  our  'Articles  of  Reli- 
gion.' "  A  beautiful  set  of  "Articles"  which  even  a  Univer- 
salist  may  honestly  adopt ! 

In  proof  of  these  proselyting  schemes,  the  writer  on  "  Practi- 
cal Methodism"  (who  is  commonly  understood  to  be  "  Kir- 
wan,"  Dr.  Murray)  says — "Another  characteristic  of  their 
preaching  is  the  abuse  of  other  denominations.  *  *  *  For 
sectarian  purposes  they  pervert  and  caricature  the  opinions 
and  belief  of  their  Calvinistic  brethren.     This  sin,  as  far  as  I 

be  in  silence. ' "  1  Tim.  2  :  11,  12.  Barclay  replies,  "  We  think  this  not  re- 
pugnant to  this  (our)  doctrine."  "  Not  repugnant,"  retorts  Wesley — "  I  do 
not  suffer  a  woman  to  teach  ? — Then  I  know  not  what  is."  See  Letter  to  a 
Quaker. 


Let.  XIV.  CAMP   MEETINGS.  2-43 

know,  is  co-extensive  with  Methodism.  If  there  are  individ- 
ual exceptions,  I  have  not  met  them.  *  *  *  Above  all 
things  else,  the  doctrines  of  grace  are  their  peculiar  abhor- 
rence." "  They  put  their  own  false  and  denied  conclusions 
into  our  very  creed,  and  proclaim  to  the  world  that  we  re- 
ceive them  (these  blasphemous  sentiments)  with  a  cordial 
credence;"  or  charge  us  with  "duplicity"  in  rejecting  them  ! 
"  From  doctrines,"  continues  the  same  writer,  "they  pass  to 
a  hireling  ministry,  *  *  *  whom  they  call  by  the  chari- 
table names  of  wolves,  hirelings,  fleece-seekers,  and  this  I  have 
known  them  do,  when  their  own  salaries  for  preaching  were 
much  greater  than  those  of  the  parties  assailed."  "  AVhen  a 
person  is  reported  serious,  a  visit  may  very  soon  be  expected 
from  the  circuit-rider.  If  in  the  course  of  conversation  he 
discovers  any  leaning  to  another  fold,  the  preacher  is  sure  to 
descant  upon  the  character  and  doctrines  of  its  shepherd  and 
sheep ;  and  that  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  impression  that 
they  are  not  walking  in  all  the  ordinances  of  God  blameless. 
To  verify  these  remarks,  I  could  narrate  at  least  twenty  in- 
stances within  my  own  knowledge."  Dr.  Musgrave  of  Phila- 
delphia adds — "They  often  speak  as  if  there  were  no  real 
conversions  under  the  ministry  of  other  denominations,  and 
no  vital  or  experimental  religion  among  other  sects.  "Come 
to  our  meeting,"  they  say  to  the  members  of  other  churches — 
"  Come  to  our  meeting,  if  you  want  to  get  religion  !"  And 
one  of  them  remonstrated  with  a  relative  against  sending  her 
child  to  a  Presbyterian  Sabbath  school,  as  follows — "  What ! 
do  you  want  your  child  to  go  to  hell  ?"  Such  are  some  of 
their  favorite  methods  of  "  reforming  the  continent  and  spread- 
ing holiness!"  Yet  it  is  a  familiar  fact  to  those  who  have 
had  the  best  opportunities  of  judging,  that  the  multitude  of 
spurious  conversions  under  such  labors,  tends  to  make  the 
impression  on  many  minds,  that  all  vital  religion  is  a  sham! 
And  where  Unitarianism  and  Universalism  have  most  exten- 
sively prevailed,  a  large  proportion  of  these  deluded  errorists 


244  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIV. 

had  in  most  cases  been  Methodist  converts,  and  some  of 
them  even  preachers.  In  Massachusetts,  Arminianism  rocked 
the  cradle  of  Socinianism  in  a  hundred  churches  —  all  of 
which  abandoned  Calvinism,  stopped  awhile  at  the  half-way 
house  of  Arminius,  and  then  became  Unitarians.* 

One  of  the  chief  instruments  in  "  reforming  this  continent" 
(i.  e.  chiefly  its  Protestant  churches)  we  now  propose  to  con- 
sider with  some  care  : 

IX.  The  Difficulties  of  Arminian   Methodism,  in 

CONNECTION  WITH  CAMP  MEETINGS. 

It  is  not  intended  to  represent  as  unlawful  the  mere  act  of 
worship  in  the  open  air  or  in  the  woods.  On  the  contrary, 
we  freely  admit  that  there  often  occur  exigencies  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  church,  which  render  such  a  practice  highly  com- 
mendable. Often  have  the  people  of  God,  in  days  gone  by, 
been  driven  to  the  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth,  that  they 
might  enjoy  the  privilege  of  assembling  in  some  of  nature's 
thick  recesses,  to  worship  the  God  of  the  whole  earth  agree- 
ably to  the  dictates  of  reason  and  conscience.  And  there  are 
doubtless  many  situations  in  free  and  civilized  countries, 
where  the  homage  due  to  the  King  of  heaven  may  and  ought 
to  ascend  unitedly  from  the  great  congregation,  even  where 
no  temple  nor  altar  is  dedicated  to  the  service.  We  may 
even  advance  a  step  further :  There  is  something  both  sub- 
lime and  beautiful,  in  thus  employing  the  green  earth  and 
the  dazzling  canopy  of  heaven  as  a  temple  for  the  praise  of 
Him  who  hath  said,  "Heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth 
my  footstool,"  and  whom  "  the  heaven,  even  the  heaven  of 
heavens,  cannot  contain." 

Why  then  do  we  protest  against  Methodist  camp  meetings  ? 

1.  Because  they  afford  to  the  mixed  multitude  who  attend 
them,  unusual  and  most  abundant  advantages  for  the  practice 

*  Cooke's  Centuries.  Mr.  C.  is  an  able  and  energetic  Congregationalist, 
and  a  sound  Calvinist. 


Let.  XIV.  CAMP   MEETINGS.  245 

of  wickedness  in  many  of  its  foulest  forms.  It  is  well  known 
that  whilst  the  mass  of  the  stead}r,  orderly,  and  influential 
men  of  the  community,  who  give  tone  to  society,  and  impart 
a  healthful  direction  to  the  current  of  its  manners  and  cus- 
toms, take  little  or  no  interest  in  such  assemblages,  seldom 
attend,  and  then  for  a  very  short  time — on  the  other  hand, 
persons  of  almost  every  shade  of  color  and  character  are  ad- 
vertised, invited,  and  expected  to  attend ;  and  it  is  of  these 
for  the  most  part  that  Methodism  calculates  her  gain.  It  is 
not  meant  that  persons  of  this  description  should  not  have  the 
gospel  preached  to  them.  That  is  not  the  question.  "Is  the 
camp  meeting  the  best  method  of  bringing  them  under  the 
purifying  influence  of  the  gospel?"  Prove  this — and  then 
the  more  you  can  crowd  together  on  the  camp  ground  the 
better.  But  is  it  the  wisest  way  to  make  such  men  holy,  to 
press  them  together  for  several  days  in  succession,  and  several 
nights,  too,  where  as  "iron  sharpeneth  iron,"  and  fire  kin- 
dleth  fire,  and  depravity  stimulates  to  sin,  so  the  social  prin- 
ciple and  the  combined  energies  of  vice  excite  to  emulation  in 
deeds  of  enormous  wickedness  ?  Is  it  the  best  way  to  bring 
together  in  dangerous  combination  for  many  days  and  nights, 
men  and  women  in  mixed  multitude,  where,  it  cannot  be 
denied,  great  facilities  are  presented,  to  kindle  unholy  fires  in 
the  soul,  and  practice  iniquity  in  many  of  its  vilest  shapes  ? 
2.  For  let  it  be  remembered  that  these  meetings  are  gene- 
rally held  in  places  remote  from  the  habitations  of  men,  fre- 
quently at  the  foot  of  a  mountain — always  in  the  woods ;  that 
the  night  is  the  time  of  general  leisure  from  worldly  avoca- 
tions— the  time,  too,  when  the  excitement  at  the  camp  is 
highest — the  attention  of  the  managers  is  then  most  confined 
to  the  exclusive  scenes  of  the  meeting — and  the  best  oppor- 
tunities are  then  afforded  by  the  surrounding  darkness  for 
the  "workers  of  iniquity  to  hide  themselves;"  that  hundreds 
flock  to  such  places  for  mirth  and  recreation,  and  many  for 
much  worse  purposes;  that  independently  of  the  indecent 
21* 


246  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIV. 

postures  (spoken  of  by  Wesley  and  others),  and  besides  the 
malign  influence  of  protracted  intercourse,  the  accommoda- 
tions for  lodging  at  night  are  such  as  will  commend  them- 
selves to  no  modest  person,  particularly  to  no  modest  female, 
as  can  easily  be  shown  by  a  reference  to  facts.  These  and 
many  other  things  plainly  show  that  these  meetings  are  not 
sanctioned  by  good  sense  or  sound  morality,  much  less  by  that 
religion  which  forbids  the  very  "  appearance  of  evil."  And 
when  we  add  the  awful  profanation  of  the  holy  Sabbath,  oc- 
casioned by  the  rush  of  hundreds  from  every  quarter,  as  to 
the  festal  scenes  of  a  holiday,  or  to  the  merriment  and  dis- 
sipation of  some  great  fair,  well  may  the  serious  Christian 
pause  and  ask,  "  Can  these  things  be  duty  in  a  land  like  this, 
where  every  neighborhood  has  or  may  soon  have  a  convenient 
house  of  worship,  at  which,  by  traveling  a  short  distance,  all 
may  receive  instruction  in  the  mysteries  of  redeeming  love  ?" 
Surely  it  cannot  be  a  work  of  necessity  in  any  sense,  to  mingle 
with  the  worship  of  the  Lord  of  glory,  anything  which  bears 
so  strong  a  resemblance  to  the  works  of  darkness.  If  indeed 
the  system  were  so  amended,  that  camp  meetings  should 
never  extend  to  the  Sabbath,  many  of  the  above  objections 
would  be  removed.* 

If  camp  meetings  were  abandoned,  Methodism  would  lose 
one  chief  element  of  her  power,  especially  of  her  proselyting 

*  Says  the  Boston  Puritan :  "  The  worst  evil  is  the  extensive  and  reckless 
dosecration  of  the  Sabbath.  On  that  day  far  more  than  others,  tho  whole 
community  is  in  motion.  Loaded  vehicles,  cracking  whips,  foaming  steeds 
and  humming  wheels  are  the  order  of  the  day.  It  is  the  great  holiday  of  all 
the  young,  gay  and  thoughtless  of  both  sexes,  who  from  the  distance  of 
twenty  miles  or  more  thus  drive  in  throngs  to  the  holy  fair.  Of  the  many 
young  people  of  my  acquaintance  who  have  frequented  the  camp  ground  on 
the  Sabbath,  I  could  rarely  learn  that  any  of  them  heard  either  a  sermon  or 
a  prayer.  They  strolled  about  with  a  view  to  amuse  themselves  and  grat- 
ify curiosity  merely ;  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  on  camp 
meeting  Sabbaths  they  have  seen  more  evil  than  during  all  the  rest  of  the 
year;  and  that  many  of  them  have  at  such  times  learned  more  wickedness 
than  they  had  ever  known  elsewhere." 


Let.  XIV.  CAMP   MEETINGS.  247 

power.  "They  usually  have  on  hand,"  remarks  Dr.  Mus- 
grave,  "some  extraordinary  preacher,"  or  "wonderful  orator," 
or  "  great  revivalist" — who  is  the  most  eloquent,  powerful  and 
successful  preacher  that  has  ever  appeared  !  Their  members 
flock  from  all  parts  of  city  and  country,  and  everywhere  the 
neics  is  circulated  from  pulpit  and  class  meeting.  Many,  not 
Methodists,  go  without  suspecting  that  the  object  is,  if  pos- 
sible, t<>  pros(  lyte  them  to  Methodism."  "  Now  is  the  time  to 
give  Calvinism  the  most  deadly  thrusts  !"  "  Presbyterians 
teach  doctrines  which  represent  God  as  more  false,  cruel  and 

unjust  than !  the  non-elect  are  tempted  of  God  and 

compelled  to  sin  as  a  pretense  to  damn  them  !  Children  not  a 
span  long,  are  in  hell  suffering  the  torments  of  unquenchable 
fire  !"  Thus  the  dcsvjn  "to  reform  the  continent"  and  "  spread 
scriptural  holiness,"  goes  forward  with  tremendous  power !  ! 

"But  what,"  adds  the  writer  supposed  to  be  "  Kirwan," 
"is  the  greatest  evil  of  these  strange  measures,  is  their 
effect  in  begetting  improper  notions  of  Divine  truth.  Among 
the  Methodists  there  is  very  much  religious  irreverence 
arising  no  doubt  from  their  improper  views  of  the  Divine 
character.  Hence  their  boisterous  and  unmeaning  prayers — 
the  great  familiarity  with  which  they  treat  the  Most  High — 
their  crude  notions  of  'getting  religion,'  and  of  sinless 
perfection.  They  seem  to  suppose  that  religion  can  be 
obtained  and  lost  at  any  time — that  it  consists  in  a  boisterous 
agitation  of  the  passions — that  other  means  than  prayer  and 
the  avoidance  of  temptation,  are  to  be  emplo}Ted  in  overcom- 
ing the  devil — and  that  reverence  and  order  in  religious  wor- 
ship are  the  characteristics  of  coldness  and  formality.  A  man 
of  my  acquaintance  a  few  years  since,  cried  out,  in  an  evening 
meeting  among  the  Methodists — '  Brethren,  I  have  got  the 
devil,  and  will  not  let  him  go  till  I  kill  him.'  He  contin- 
ued fisting  his  satanic  majesty  against  the  wall  for  half  an 
hour,  whilst  the  cries  of  l  Amen'  and  '  Glory  to  God'  were 
rising  all  around  him." 


248  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIV 

But  what  impression  do  these  and  similar  traits  of  the 
system  make  upon  the  world ?  "A  man  of  intelligence  is 
prompted  by  curiosity  to  attend  one  of  the  boisterous  camp 
meetings.  He  goes  from  tent  to  tent,  from  one  praying  cir- 
cle to  another.  He  witnesses  the  fervid  enthusiasm  of  the 
preachers,  which  acts  upon  the  mass  like  a  whirlwind  upon 
the  ocean.  He  sees  some  falling  into  fits — others  exhausted 
with  shouting — others  prostrate  on  the  earth  and  crying  out, 
'  it  made  no  matter  to  them  whether  they  went  to  heaven 
head  or  heels  foremost' — a  scene  actually  witnessed.  He 
hears  twenty  or  thirty  praying  at  once,  and  the  less  fluent 
brothers  and  sisters  shouting  '  Amen.'  He  hears  one  ex- 
claim, '  I  see  the  Saviour — there  he  is  f  and  another,  '  I  see 
heaven  open  and  God  preparing  to  descend  to  us ;'  and  an- 
other crying  out,  '  Pray  on,  brothers  and  sisters — the  bless- 
ing will  soon  come.'  He  witnesses  little  else  but  irreverence 
before  Him  who  hath  said,  '  The  Lord  is  in  his  holy  temple ; 
let  all  the  earth  keep  silence  before  him.'  If  such  scenes  are 
not  well  calculated  to  make  the  impression  that  religion  is 
only  fitted  for  the  vulgar — that  it  is  all  a  matter  of  blind  su- 
perstition, I  know  not  what  scenes  are."  That  the  foregoing 
statements  do  not  exceed  or  exaggerate  the  simple  truth,  is 
proved  by  Dr.  Ashbel  Green,  who  aflirms  that  they  are  in 
"  exact  accordance  with  the  reports  which  were  made  to  him 
from  various  quarters."  The  facts  were  such  as  u  had  either 
passed  under  the  observation  of  the  reporters,  or  were  nar- 
rated by  creditable  and  pious  individuals." 

Again,  remarks  the  writer  on  "  Practical  Methodism :" 
u  Another  of  their  evil  effects  upon  the  church  arises  from 
the  little  value  they  set  upon  Christian  instruction  in  any  of 
its  departments.  Their  system  is  formed  mainly  with  refer- 
ence to  the  passions.  Their  preaching,  praying,  classes, 
camp  meetings  and  love  feasts,  are  all  conducted  so  as  to 
affect  the  passions.  As  respects  instruction,  a  moral  famine 
pervades  every  thing  they  do.     This  might  be  expected  from 


Let.  XIV.  CAMP   MEETINGS.  249 

the  character  of  a  large  majority  of  their  clergy.  A  person 
professes  conversion  to-day,  and  is  admitted  to  the  communion 
to-morrow  ;  and  thus  the  church  is  filled  with  ignorant  mem- 
bers ;  ignorant  of  the  Bible,  and  in  a  very  lamentable  degree 
of  the  plan  of  salvation.  And  their  example  is  exerting  a 
deleterious  influence  upon  other  portions  of  the  church. 
Other  denominations,  to  prevent  their  adherents  from  be- 
coming Methodists,  '  where  they  can  get  religion  so  easily,' 
admit  them  to  membership  too  hastily." 

Wesley  himself  asserts :  "  Were  I  to  preach  three  years 
together  in  one  place,  both  the  people  and  myself  would  grow 
as  dead  as  stones."  We  may  well  suspect  the  piety  that 
would  die  under  a  three  years'  trial  of  this  kind.  Whatever 
benefits  accrue  among  the  Methodists  from  "  the  constant 
change  of  preachers,"  it  is  certain  that  it  lays  a  strong  temp- 
tation in  the  way  of  the  preacher  to  neglect  the  improvement 
of  his  mind,  after  he  has  gone  through  a  sufficiently  extensive 
course  of  sermons,  which  he  is  at  liberty  to  preach  at  every 
successive  change  of  his  circuit.  The  people,  too,  will  be  fed 
with  milk,  milk,  milk.  Any  thing  like  systematic  discussion 
of  the  great  truths  of  the  Scriptures  in  their  connected  order, 
is  almost  entirely  out  of  the  question.  Abundant  facts  tes- 
tify to  the  truth  of  these  remarks. 

While  therefore  we  cheerfully  concede  to  the  Methodists 
the  credit  which  is  due  them  for  conveying  a  measure  of 
religious  and  moral  instruction  to  a  large  class  of  mankind, 
including  many  of  the  most  depraved  and  destitute,  we  cannot 
but  fear  that  the  foregoing  errors  and  disorders  are  exerting 
an  influence  upon  society  which  is  any  thing  but  salutary. 
Religion  will  generally  be  estimated  by  the  character  and 
conduct  of  her  professed  followers.  And  when  the  worship 
of  the  God  of  the  whole  earth,  the  infinitely  perfect  Spirit, 
the  only  object  of  religious  homage,  is  so  widely  at  variance 
with  the  plainest  dictates  of  propriety ;  when  instead  of  that 
"  reasonable  service"  which  he  requires,   extravagance  and 


250  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIV. 

confusion  prevail ;  when  long  and  noisy  vociferation  is  sub- 
stituted for  instruction  in  religious  truth ;  when  the  object  is 
rather  to  rouse  the  animal  sensibilities  than  awaken  the  con- 
science, enlighten  the  understanding  and  humble  the  heart; 
when  those  in  numerous  instances  are  appointed  to  teach 
who  ought  first  to  learn,*  and  the  most  incongruous  state- 
ments are  gravely  announced  as  the  sober  conclusions  of  rea- 
son and  truth;  when  the  results  of  natural  causes,  terror, 
nervous  irritability,  bodily  exhaustion,  &c.  are  boldly  pro- 
nounced to  be  essentials  in  that  "holiness  without  which  no 
man  shall  see  the  Lord ;"  when  all  this  (and  there  is  much 
more  of  the  same  character)  is  witnessed  by  men  of  even 
ordinary  discernment,  nothing  is  more  easy  and  natural  than 
to  transfer  their  feelings  of  disgust  from  those  who  practice 
those  abuses  of  religion,  to  religion  herself.  "  Where  the 
Methodist  religion/'  says  the  writer  of  "  Practical  Method- 
ism," "  has  been  for  a  time  prevalent,  unchecked  by  the 
presence  of  other  denominations,  you  find  the  talented  and 
influential  members  of  society  opposed  not  only  to  the  Meth- 
odists, but  to  every  thing  in  the  form  of  godliness."  "  The 
region  in  which  I  live,"  continues  the  same  writer,  "bears  a 
decided  testimony  to  the  truth  of  this  fact.  Methodism  was 
once  dominant.  It  carried  nearly  every  thing  before  it ;  and 
now  the  intelligent  and  influential  are  generally  infidels,  or 
something  as  bad,  and  are  rarely  ever  seen  within  the  walls 
of  a  church.  Methodism  is  on  the  wane.  The  people  are 
becoming  tired  of  it;  and  that  cold  chill,  the  sure  precursor 
of  spiritual  death,  is  pervading  the  whole  community."  "If 
this  be  religion,"  exclaimed  one  who  was  leaving  the  scenes 
of  a  camp  ground,   "  Heaven  preserve  me  from  it."     As  the 

*  The  example  of  the  disciples,  "  a  few  illiterate  fishermen,"  is  some- 
times adduced  in  favor  of  an  unlearned  ministry.  But  it  seems  to  bo 
overlooked  that  those  fishermen  had  received,  besides  miraculous  powers, 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  Most  Holy,  three  full  years  of  instruction  from 
the  lips  of  "the  Teacher  sent  from  God;"  the  very  best  of  all  training 
for  the  ministry. 


Let.  XIV.  CAMP  MEETINGS.  251 

scandalous  conduct  of  the  Romish  clergy  has  left  an  eternal 
staiu  and  stigma  upon  the  very  name  of  priest,  so  have  we 
reason  to  fear,  will  much  that  Methodism  calls  religion,  preju- 
dice the  minds  and  steel  the  hearts  of  thousands  against  the 
pure  and  heavenly  doctrines  of  Divine  Revelation. 

"  But  have  not  Presbyterians  sometimes  held  camp  meet- 
ings?" Yes!  We  do  not  decide  upon  their  expediency  or 
inexpediency  in  our  new  settlements,  and  when  properly  con- 
ducted. The  foregoing  discussion  has  reference  mainly  to  the 
practice  of  holding  these  meetings  in  the  vicinity  of  cities  and 
large  villages,  in  neighborhoods  long  settled  and  furnished 
with  many  churches  and  other  conveniences  for  the  orderly 
worship  of  God.  Their  propriety  among  a  sparse  population, 
destitute  of  suitable  houses  of  worship,  would  depend  in  a 
great  measure  upon  their  management.  But  we  are  persuad- 
ed there  can  be  no  sufficient  plea  for  such  assemblages  under 
other  circumstances  than  such  as  we  have  mentioned.  This 
view  of  the  subject  will  also  show  the  propriety  of  the  remarks 
we  have  made  upon  the  method  of  lodging  at  night.  The 
"  log  cabins"  of  the  Far  West  are  designed  to  be  only  a  tem- 
porary arrangement,  to  yield  with  all  possible  speed  to  better 
accommodations.  Necessity  in  such  cases  knows  no  law. 
But  we  should  all  feel  the  indelicacy,  not  to  say  indecency, 
of  voluntarily  forsaking  separate  chambers,  to  huddle  male 
and  female  into  the  same  apartment ;  and  all  from  the  fervor 
of  our  zeal  for  religion  and  the  salvation  of  souls  !  Paul  was 
himself  a  "  tentmaker."  And  though  they  had  no  churches 
to  assemble  in,  we  hear  of  his  preaching  on  "  Mars  Hill,"  in 
an  "  upper  chamber,"  in  his  own  "  hired  room,"  and  in  an 
oratory  by  the  river  side ;  but  never  do  we  read  of  his  em- 
ploying his  mechanical  skill  to  furnish  a  camp  ground,  nor 
that  he  ever  sanctioned  a  similar  practice. 


252  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNIANISM.  Let.  XV. 

LETTER   XV. 

ABUSES  IN  ADMINISTERING  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

Rev.  Sir  —  Christians  generally  admit  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  be  Divine  institutions,  and  therefore  of  im- 
mense value  and  importance  in  every  system  which  seeks  "the 
spreading  of  scriptural  knowledge."  We  now  proceed  to  exam- 
ine how  this  matter  is  managed  in  Arminian  Methodism. 

X.  Difficulties  with  regard  to  Religious  Ordi- 
nances. 

1.  Upon  this  subject,  the  theory  and  practice  of  Methodism 
seem  very  well  to  agree.  What  are  we  to  thiuk  of  "  Articles 
and  Discipline,"  which,  after  stating  that  the  baptism  of 
children  is  to  be  retained  in  the  church,  contain  not  one  word 
respecting  the  character  of  the  parents ;  and  which  of  course 
require  nothing  more,  in  order  to  the  baptism  of  their  chil- 
dren, from  the  most  profane  and  vicious,  than  from  the  most 
moral  and  religious?  The  whole  subject  is  left  as  though  it 
were  a  matter  of  the  utmost  indifference.  No  obligations  of 
any  kind  are  prescribed ;  no  inquiry  of  knowledge  or  decent 
deportment;  no  demand  of  future  obedience  to  the  Divine 
precepts.  The  great  point  seems  to  be,  to  get  children  bap- 
tized, and  as  many  as  possible  by  the  Methodist  church,  with 
which  the  parents  are  thus  brought  into  a  kind  of  connection 
and  membership.  On  the  principle  that  "coming  to  us"  is 
to  "  get  religion,"  with  almost  as  great  certainty  as  to  unite 
with  others  is  to  be  destitute  of  it,  this  method  of  attaching 
persons  of  every  description  to  the  meeting  is  adopted  without 
scruple  ;  and  doubtless  the  end  will  fully  justify  the  means. 
In  this  way,  too,  the  hearts  of  the  unwary  are  deceived  by  a 
show  of  great  liberality;  and  an  excellent  opportunity  fur- 
nished to  declaim  against  narrow-minded  Presbyterians,  who 
believe  in  the  everlasting  perdition  of  helpless  infants.     We 


Let.  XV.  SACRAMENTAL   ABUSES.  253 

admit  that  the  preachers  suppose  their  practice  to  he  consist- 
ent with  the  order  of  Christ's  house ;  but  this  will  not  change 
the  essential  nature  of  truth,  nor  make  that  right  which  is 
wrong,  even  though,  like  Saul  of  Tarsus  when  persecuting 
the  church,  they  think  they  are  doing  God  service. 

In  the  last  edition  of  the  "  Discipline  "  (1856),  it  is  said 
that  "all  children,  by  virtue  of  the  unconditional  benefits  of 
the  atonement,  are  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
therefore  graciously  entitled  to  baptism" — of  course  without 
the  slightest  reference  to  the  character  of  the  parents ;  the 
title  of  the  child  of  infidels  being  equal  to  that  of  the  child 
of  believers !  It  is  added,  "  that  as  infant  baptism  contem- 
plates a  course  of  religious  instruction,  it  is  expected  of  all 
parents  or  guardians,  *  *  *  that  they  use  all  diligence  in 
bringing  them  up  in  conformity  to  the  icord  of  God,  and 
they  should  be  solemnly  admonished  and  exhorted  to  faithful- 
ness therein."  "  It  IS  expected" — who  expects  such  duties 
to  be  performed  by  infidel  parents  !  Who  expects  such  dili- 
gence from  drunkards,  profane  swearers  and  others  of  that 
sort !  Yet,  as  their  childjen  are  "  entitled  to  baptism,"  of 
course  the  preacher  dare  not  refuse  !  What  an  idea,  to  expect 
"  a  course  of  religious  instruction"  to  be  given  in  "  the  word 
of  God,"  from  infidels  and  all  sorts  of  vile  characters  ! 

Circumcision  (the  Old  Testament  baptism)  was  never  ap- 
plied to  any  but  the  children  of  Abraham,  and  to  parents 
and  children  who  became  proselytes  to  Judaism.  Yet  that 
was  "  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  as  much  a3 
baptism.  Of  whose  faith  ?  Not  surely  of  the  " faith"  of  the 
infant  of  eight  days  old,  but  of  the  parent  who,  in  the  exercise 
of  "faith,"  gave  away  the  child  to  the  expected  Saviour,  and 
came  under  the  obligations  implied  in  such  a  gift,  to  bring  it 
up  in  "the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  "Circum- 
cision," says  Wesley,  "being  abolished,  and  baptism  coming 
in  the  room  of  it,  baptism  should  be  applied  to  all  those  who 
have  any  interest  in  the  covenant — this  seems  to  manifest 
22 


254  DIFFICULTIES   OF  AEMINIANISM.  Let.  XV. 

the  right  of  the  children  of  Christians  to  these  blessings,  or 
that  they  have  an  interest  in  this  covenant."*  Poet.  Tracts, 
p.  2G7.  Hence  also  we  find  that  when  the  Apostles  received 
into  church  fellowship  the  parents,  it  is  generally  added  they 
baptized  their  household — but  we  never  read  of  their  bap- 
tizing the  household  or  the  children  of  any  who  did  not 
profess  faith  in  Christ.  The  reason  was  precisely  the  same 
for  refusing  baptism  to  the  offspring  of  unbelievers,  as  for 
denying  circumcision  to  those  who  were  not  Jews — "  The  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith  "  (applied  in  either  form,)  im- 
plied the  existence  of  faith — the  seal  of  the  covenant,  that 
the  covenant  had  been  entered  into.  Where,  therefore,  there 
is  no  "  faith "  in  exercise,  and  no  covenant  embraced  and 
agreed  to,  to  apply  the  seal  of  the  covenat,  is  to  seal  a  blank. 
It  is  plain,  therefore,  from  the  nature  of  the  ordinance,  from 
the  nature  of  the  covenant  (of  which  it  is  the  seal),  as  well 
as  from  the  character  and  extent  of  its  obligations,  that  in 
the  baptism  of  the  infants  of  the  vicious  and  profane,  "  who 
are  strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise,"  the  great  seal  of 
High  Heaven,  the  solemn  ratification  of  God's  covenant,  is 
appended  to  a  nullity,  or  what  is  worse,  to  an  untruth. 
Something  indeed  is  said  about  an  "  unconditional  charter," 
entitling  all  infants  to  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  without 
respect  to  their  parentage,  and  securing  to  them,  uncondi- 
tionally, the  right  of  baptism.  But  why  were  the  blessings 
of  this  "unconditional  charter"  limited,  in  the  case  of  the 
Jews  ?  Why  did  it  not  secure  the  right  of  circumcision  to 
the  infants  of  Gentiles  ?  And  why  was  it  restricted  to  those 
who  were  united  to  the  professing  people  of  God,  either  by 

*  Watson  takes  the  same  view.  "  The  question  is,  whether  the  infant 
children  of  believing  parents  are  entitled  to  be  made  parties  to  the  covenant 
of  grace  by  the  act  of  their  parents  ?"  "  The  apostolic  practice  was  to  bap- 
tize the  houses  (households)  of  them  that  believed."  "  On  the  supposition 
that  baptism  was  administered  to  the  children  of  the  parents  who  thus  be- 
lieved, at  the  same  time  as  thomselves  and  in  consequence  of  their 
believing,  it  may  be  asked,"  Ac.    Vol.  ii.  pp.  630,  639. 


Let.  XV.  SACRAMENTAL  ABUSES.  255 

birth  or  proselytisin  ?  Dr.  Clarke  on  Acts  16  :  32,  tells  us, 
"  the  Jewish  practice  was  invariably  to  receive  the  heathen 
children  with  (not  without)  their  proselyted  parents."  And 
Wesley  informs  us  that  u  in  the  Christian  church,  in  its  earli- 
est ages,  and  I  think  from  the  Apostles'  time,  it  has  been  the 
custom  to  baptize  the  infant  children  of  professed  Christians." 
Doct.  Tracts,  p.  275.  The  father  of  Methodism,  then,  no 
less  than  the  word  of  God  and  the  example  of  the  Apostles, 
condemns  the  practice  of  administering  baptism  to  the  infant 
children  of  those  who  give  no  scriptural  evidence  of  piety. 
Man  cannot  search  the  heart,  but  reason  may  apply  the  prin- 
ciples of  Holy  Writ,  by  which  we  are  to  "  try  the  spirits  "  and 
test  the  character  and  fitness  of  those  who  claim  for  them- 
selves or  their  offspring,  the  "  sign  and  seal  "  of  the  covenant 
of  grace.  To  neglect  this,  is  to  declare  it  to  be  a  matter  of 
no  importance  that  institutions  of  Divine  authority  should  be 
administered  in  "truth  and  righteousness."  "The  ordinance 
is  inseparably  connected  with  the  incumbent  duty  of  '  bringing 
up  the  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.'  If 
this  connection  is  lost  sight  of — if  it  is  not  contemplated  at 
the  time,  and  is  practically  disregarded  afterward,  the  ordi- 
nance becomes  nothing  better  than  a  useless  ceremony  and  an 
idle  and  profane  mockery  of  its  Divine  author."* 

2.    Nor  is  the  practice  with  regard  to  the  other  sacrament 

*  This  extract  is  from  the  pen  of  the  distinguished  Dr.  Wardlaw,  of  Glas- 
gow. The  Dr.  adds  :  "  The  profit  to  the  child  must  bo  through  the  medium 
of  the  parent;  and  it  has  long  appeared  to  me,  that  it  is  to  the  parent,  rather 
than  to  the  child,  that  infant  baptism  is  in  the  first  instauco  to  be  reckoned  a 
privilege."  "  That  multitudes  who  have  their  children  baptized,  never  think 
of  the  ordinance  in  any  such  light,  and  are  quite  regardless  of  the  obligations 
which,  I  will  not  say  it  imposes,  but  which  it  implies  and  brings  to  mind,  is  a 
melancholy  truth.  And  I  would  earnestly  admonish  those  parents  of  the 
guilt  they  are  contracting  by  their  solemn  mockery  of  Heaven,  in  the  careless 
pi  ifaaation  of  a  Divine  institution."  President  Edwards,  nearly  a  century 
ago,  abundantly  insisted  that  "this  way  of  proceeding  tends  to  establish  the- 
stupidity  and  irreligion  of  children,  as  well  as  the  negligence  of  parents." 
Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  427. 


256  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANI3M.  Let.  XV. 

of  Christ's  house  at  all  more  agreeable  to  reason  and  Scrip- 
ture. The  Book  of  Discipline  prescribes  examination*  for 
admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  as  it  says  nothing 
about  the  topics,  every  preacher  is  left  to  do  just  what  seem- 
eth  right  in  his  own  eyes.  Hence  the  very  superficial 
investigation  of  faith  and  practice  at  camp  meetings,  and  the 
common  usage  of  receiving  an  appearance  of  tenderness  as 
sufficient  recommendation,  without  inquiry  whether  the  per- 
son has  heen  baptized,  or  whether  his  character  and  habits 
are  not  scandalous,  and  will  not  render  him  a  disgrace  to  the 
ordinance,  and  a  just  object  of  contempt  to  the  infidel  and 
scoffer.  A  member  of  my  church  (from  whose  lips  I  had  the 
fact),  whilst  traveling  through  one  of  the  western  counties  of 
Pennsylvania,  was  present  at  a  quarterly  meeting  when  the 
communion  was  administered.  When  the  services  were  nearly 
completed,  a  rough,  uncouth  person  pressed  forward  toward 
the  altar  and  demanded  the  elements,  saying,  "  I  came  here 
to  get  religion,  and  like  to  forgot  it."  After  some  consulta- 
tion among  the  preachers,  the  bread  and  wine  were  presented 
to  him.  This,  we  readily  admit,  is  an  extreme,  though  by 
no  means  a  solitary  case.  But  where  in  the  authorized 
Book  of  Discipline  and  standard  of  doctrine,  will  you  find 
one  syllable  which  condemns  such  scandalous  proceedings. 
The  volume  therefore  which  contains  the  confession  of  faith 
and  forms  of  worship  adopted  by  Methodists,  tacitly  gives 
its  consent  and  approbation  to  this  gross  outrage  upon  de- 
cency. It  will  be  readily  admitted  that  in  the  purest 
churches  and  under  the  most  cautious  discipline,  unworthy 
persons  may  intrude  into  the  sacraments ;  but  this  furnishes 
no  apology  for  unforbidden  practices,  which  reflect  dishonor 
upon  the  very  name  of  religion. 

In  reply  to  these  statements  it   has  been   said,  "that  an 
individual  who  had  previously  been  very  wicked  might,  on 

*  The  edition  of  1856  has  dropped  this  item  requiring  examination,  so  that 
not  evon  that  is  now  required. 


Let.  XV.  SACRAMENTAL   ABUSES.  257 

the  occasion  of  a  camp  meeting,  become  truly  penitent  and 
intend  to  lead  a  new  life ;  and  it  is  better  to  be  imposed  upon 
than  to  stand  in  the  way  of  one  sincere  soul  in  fulfilling  the 
command  of  Christ."  In  other  words,  the  Apostle  says,  "Let 
a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat" — the  preache 
replies,  "Let  him  become  truly  penitent,  and  intend  to  lea( 
a  new  life;  and  leave  the  examination  to  a  more  convenient 
season  !"  The  Apostle  says,  "  He  that  eateth  and  drinketh 
unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  and 
is  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  not  discerning 
the  Lord's  body"  —  "it  is  better  for  us  to  be  imposed 
upon,"  replies  the  preacher,  "and  that  sinners  should  risk 
these  awful  consequences,  than  that  we  should  stand  in  the 
way  of  one  sincere  soul  in  fulfilling  the  command  of  Christ." 
It  cannot  be  proved  that  Christ  ever  commanded  any  man  to 
rush  from  the  boisterous  excitemeat  of  the  camp  ground, 
without  time  for  self-recollection  and  self-examination,  to  the 
tender  and  most  solemn  exercises  of  the  communion.  There 
is  no  example  of  any  such  practice  in  the  Scriptures;  and 
the  language  of  Paul  plainly  implies  the  direct  contrary. 
Wesley,  however,  asserts  that  our  Lord  commanded  the  very 
men  who  were  unconverted  (his  disciples),  who  (in  the  full 
sense  of  the  word)  were  not  believers,  "  to  do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  him  !"  He  adduces  this  to  show  "the  falsehood 
of  the  assertion  that  none  but  the  converted,  those  who  are 
believers  in  the  full  sense,  ought  to  communicate. 

3.  A  third  head  of  abuses  is  the  practice  of  kneeling  in 
the  act  of  communion,  and  much  of  the  language  employed 
in  administering  the  ordinance.  The  Saviour  and  his  disci- 
ples celebrated  the  first  supper  ("  the  Lord's  Supper,"  as  Paul 
calls  it,  1  Cor.  11 :  20)  in  the  common  table  posture.  "  Now 
when  the  even  was  come,"  says  the  evangelist  Matthew,  "  he 
sat  down  with  the  twelve."  "  And  as  they  were  eating, 
Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to 
the  disciples,  and  said  :  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body."  So  also 
22* 


258  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XV. 

Luke  (22:14),  "He  sat  down,"  &c.  And  to  render  the 
custom  of  the  primitive  church  still  more  evident,  Paul  char- 
acterizes the  ordinance  as  "  the  Lord's  table."  1  Cor.  10  : 
21.  It  is  admitted  that  they  sat  in  a  leaning  attitude,  as 
was  then  usual,  but  this  does  not  in  the  least  abate  the  force 
of  the  testimony.  Now  if  the  blessed  Redeemer  has  set  us 
the  example  in  adopting  this  posture,  even  in  instituting  the 
sacrament,  by  what  authority  do  men  venture  to  change  what 
he  has  ordained  ?  If  Christ  and  his  disciples  sat  down,  who 
shall  authorize  a  different  attitude  ? 

Further :  The  practice  of  kneeling  in  receiving  the  sacra- 
mental elements,  originated  in  superstition.  Pope  Honorius 
the  Second  is  believed  to  have  been  the  first  that  ordained 
this  posture;  and  it  grew  out  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  which  had  some  time 
previously  received  the  infallible  sanction  of  Pope  Innocent 
the  Third.  "  The  most  ardent  friends  of  kneeling,"  says  Dr. 
Miller,  "  do  not  pretend  to  find  any  example  of  this  posture 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  church,  prior  to  the  thirteenth 
century.  And  accordingly  in  the  Greek  church,  which  sepa- 
rated from  the  Latin  before  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation 
arose,  kneeling  at  the  communion  is  unknown."  It  must  be 
regarded  therefore,  as  a  part  of  that  "  will  worship  and  vol- 
untary humility/'  which  characterize  the  corruptions  of  the 
Romish  church.  Besides,  the  ordinance  is  a  feast — a  feast 
of  confidence,  fellowship,  joy  and  thanksgiving;  and  there  is 
something  utterly  incongruous  in  such  a  posture  in  such 
circumstances.  "  In  what  nation  is  it  thought  suitable  to 
kneel  at  banquets  ?  Where  do  men  eat  and  drink  upon  their 
knees  ?"  It  is  admitted  that  it  is  not  done  superstitiously 
among  Protestants;  but  it  is  undoubtedly  adapted  to  nourish 
error  and  superstition,  and  is  liable  to  great  and  continual 
misapprehension  by  the  weak  and  ignorant.  And  if  the  door 
be  thrown  open — if  the  precedent  be  set  of  improving  upon 
Divine  institutions,  the  way  is  clear  to  admit  all  the  worst 
abominations  of  the  church  of  Rome. 


Let.  XV.  SACRAMENTAL   ABUSES.  259 

4.  "The  prayer  of  consecration,"  which  the  elder  is  re- 
quired to  say,  is  another  "  dead  fly,"  emitting  by  no  means  a 
sweet  .savor.  Our  "  Lord  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  it," 
or  "gave  thanks"  as  it  is  recorded  by  Paul,  and  as  many  of 
the  Greek  copies  of  Matthew's  Gospel  have  it.  Why  will 
men  venture  to  change  the  language  of  Him  who  instituted 
this  ordinance  ?  And  our  objections  are  still  stronger  when 
we  find  the  undue  importance  which  is  attached  to  this 
"prayer  of  consecration."  "We  are  particularly  informed  that 
"if  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  be  all  spent,  the  elder 
may  consecrate  more  by  repeating  the  prayer  of  consecration  !" 
And  again,  that  "  if  the  elder  be  straitened  for  time,  he  may 
omit  any  part  of  the  service,  EXCEPT  the  prayer  OF  CONSE- 
CRATION." But  where  is  all  this  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ?  Where  has  the  Saviour  intimated  that  if  the  elder 
Lave  not  laid  his  hands  upon  a  sufficient  quantity  of  bread 
and  wine,  when  he  first  "gives  thanks"  (or  offers  uthe 
prayer  of  consecration"),  he  must  "  lay  his  hands"  upon 
more,  and  "give  thanks"  over  again!*  "Who  hath  required 
this  at  your  hands  ?"  Does  it  not  savor  strongly  of  the  mass, 
to  give  such  prominence  to  a  form  prescribed  by  man  ?  "  Ex- 
cept the  prayer  of  consecration  !"  The  Holy  Mother  Church 
has  it,  "except  all  be  said  and  done  by  a  regularly  ordained 
priest  in  communion  with  the  See  of  Rome,"  empowered  to 
consecrate  the  bread  or  wafer  into  "the  body,  blood,  soul  and 
divinity"  of  Christ ! 

Finally:  The  unscriptural  character  of  this  part  of  the 
Methodist  Discipline  is  also  manifest  in  the  act  of  distribu- 
tion. Paul  tells  us  that  he  "  received  of  the  Lord,"  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  said,  "Take,  eat — this  is  my  body,"  &c.  "This 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood,"  &c.  (1  Cor.  11 :24, 
25.)     And  with  a  few  unimportant  variations,  the  same   is 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  although  our  Saviour  is  said  to  havo  "  given 
thanks,"  just  before  ho  distributed  the  elonients,  "the  prayer  of  consecra- 
tion" contains  not  one  syllable  properly  of  the  nature  of  thanksgiving ! 


260  DIFFICULTIES    OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XV. 

the  record  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  But  here  in  the  "  Discip- 
line/' the  form  used  by  the  Saviour  of  men,  and  specially  re- 
vealed to  the  Apostle  Paul,  is  crowded  into  the  "prayer  of 
consecration"  and  instead  thereof,  the  elder  is  to  say  the 
following :  "  The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was 
given  for  thee,  preserve  thy  soul  and  body  unto  everlasting 
life.  Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for 
thee,  and  feed  on  him  by  faith  with  thanksgiving."  And  a 
similar  form  is  used  when  he  distributes  the  wine,  only  with 
the  necessary  adaptation  to  the  change  of  the  elements.  But 
it  is  obvious  that  this,  to  say  the  least,  is  a  needless  and  un- 
authorized departure  from  Christ's  own  teaching  and  example. 
If  the  Saviour  himself  selected  and  used  a  certain  form  of 
words,  who  will  venture  to  say  it  is  not  most  agreeable  to  his 
will  ?  Can  it  be  right  to  substitute  a  different  one  ?  And 
especially  is  this  inquiry  important,  when  the  substituted  form 
employs  a  phraseology  with  regard  to  the  "  body  and  blood" 
of  the  Saviour,  which  has  no  parallel  in  the  Scriptures,  but  is 
strongly  tinctured  with  idolatry.  "  The  body  of  our  Lord, 
&c.  preserve  thy  soul  and  body  unto  everlasting  life."  The 
Romanist  could  consistently  use  such  a  prayer,  because  he 
believes  that  the  bread  or  wafer  is  "  the  body,  soul  and  divin- 
ity" of  the  Saviour.  But  the  sober  Christian  will  say — "Let 
me  employ  as  nearly  as  possible  the  gracious  words  which 
proceeded  from  the  lips  of  Him  who  spake  as  never  man 
spake,  and  who  has  a  right  to  say  what  shall  be  the  form  of 
administering  the  most  solemn  ordinance  of  his  own  house." 
It  may  perhaps  be  thought  that  a  close  adherence  to  the 
inspired  pattern  in  administering  the  sacraments,  is  not  a 
matter  of  very  much  importance.  But  if  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  have  left  on  record  a  certain  form,  why  not  use  it? 
Can  we  improve  upon  it?  Would  not  every  Christian  revolt, 
if  any  uninspired  man  should  take  the  liberty  of  changing  the 
baptismal  form?  Yet  why  should  the  one  phraseology  be 
esteemed  more  sacred  than  the  other  ?     Why  would  it  not  bo 


Let.  XVI.  METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  261 

lawful  to  say — "I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity?" 
Fet  this  change  would  not  be  so  great  as  has  been  usual  in 
the  form  of  the  other  sacrament.  The  form  of  baptism  is  but 
once  recorded  (Matt.  28:19),  yet  we  believe  there  is  almost 
entire  uniformity  with  respect  to  it,  in  the  Christian  world. 
"Whence  the  unwarranted  liberty  taken  with  the  other  form! 
The  writer  is  also  aware  that  in  this  Letter,  and  perhaps  in 
some  others,  he  crosses  the  path  of  one  or  two  denominations 
of  Christians  with  whom  he  wishes  to  have  no  controversy, 
and  toward  whom  he  entertains  feelings  of  fraternal  regard. 
If  he  has  occasionally  touched  the  views  and  usages  of  other 
sects,  while  he  asks  for  a  candid  perusal  of  what  he  may 
write,  he  can  only  express  his  regret  at  the  necessity  which 
has  been  laid  upon  him,  of  encroaching  to  some  small  extent 
upon  neutral  territory. 


LETTER    XVI. 

METHODIST  EPISCOPACY— EXCLUSION  OF  LAYMEN. 

Rev.  Sir — In  the  progress  of  this  investigation  we  come 
now  to  the  subject  of  Church  Government,  as  administered 
in  Arminian  Methodism. 

XI.  Difficulties  in  regard  to  nER  Form  of  Govern- 
ment— it  is  Unscriptural,  Anti-Hepublican,  Unjust 
and  Tyrannical. 

On  page  126  of  "  the  Discipline,"  it  is  said  that  u  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  appointed  divers  orders  of  ministers  in  his 
church."  And  elsewhere  in  the  same  volume,  "forms  of 
consecration  and  ordination"  are  given  for  bishops,  elders, 
and  deacons,  respectively.  In  the  appendix  to  Buck's  Theo- 
logical Dictionary,  written  by  Dr.  Bangs,  it  is  said  that  in 
Methodism  "  three  orders  of  ministers  arc  recognized,  and 
the  duties  peculiar  to  each  are  clearly  defined."     Dr.  Clarke, 


262  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.        Let.  XVI. 

in  commenting  on  1  Tim.  chap.  3,  v.  1,  states  that  "  Episco- 
pacy in  the  church  of  God  is  of  Divine  appointment,  and 
should  be  maintained  and  respected.  Under  God  there 
should  be  supreme  governors  in  the  church  as  well  as  in  the 
state.  The  state  has  its  monarch:  the  church  has  its  bishop." 
"  The  office  of  a  bishop  is  from  God."     Note,  Acts  20 :  28. 

Now  that  these  "divers  orders"  are  the  invention  of  men, 
and  not  the  appointment  of  God,  has  been  often  and  most 
abundantly  proved,     For, 

1.  There  is  no  scriptural  evidence  whatever  that  the  office 
of  deacon  embraced  the  duty  either  of  teaching  or  ruling  in 
the  church.  In  support  of  this  position,  we  refer  to  the  ori- 
ginal appointment  as  recorded  in  the  6th  chapter  of  Acts, 
where  the  object  is  distinctly  declared  to  be,  not  the  estab- 
lishment of  another  order  of  ministers  or  teachers,  but  of  a 
class  of  men  whose  business  it  should  be  to  "serve  tables,"  or 
attend  to  the  secular  affairs  of  the  church;  "but  we,"  say  the 
Apostles,  "will  give  ourselves  to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry 
of  the  word."  That  some  of  those  who  were  first  appointed 
deacons,  did  afterward  preach  the  gospel,  and  act  as  evangel- 
ists, is  not  denied;  but  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that 
they  were  either  ministers  or  evangelists,  in  consequence  of 
their  appointment  to  " serve  tables."  "It  is  not  reason,"  sa*y 
the  Apostles,  "  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God  and 
serve  tables." 

Dr.  Bangs,  in  his  "  Vindication  of  Methodist  Episcopacy," 
p.  14,  derives  an  argument  from  1  Tim.  3  : 8,  in  support  of 
the  ministerial  character  of  deacons :  "  Likewise  must  the 
deacons  be  grave" — but  just  three  verses  farther  on  the 
Apostle  adds,  "even  so  must  their  wives  be  grave."  Were 
the  deacons'  wives  ministers  of  the  gospel  ?  And  when  Paul 
subjoins  two  verses  farther  down,  "For  they  that  use  the  of- 
fice of  deacon  well,  purchase  to  themselves  a  good  degree,  and 
great  boldness  in  the  faith,"  Dr.  Clarke  well  expresses  the 
meaning — "they  are  here  said  to  purchase  to  themselves  a 


Let.  XVI.  METIIODIST   EPISCOPACY.  263 

good  degree ;  for  instead  of  having  to  minister  to  the  bodies 
and  bodily  wants  of  the  poor,  the  faithful  deacons  were  raised 
to  minister  in  holy  things:  and  instead  of  ministering  the 
bread  that  per isheth,  they  were  raised  to  minister  the  bread  of 
life  to  immortal  souls."  This  no  doubt  was  often  exemplified 
when  persons  exercising  the  office  of  deacon  diligently  and 
faithfully,  were  elevated  to  the  higher  office  of  ministers  of 
the  everlasting  gospel.  "  It  is  evident,"  says  Dr.  Scott,  an 
Episcopalian,  "  that  they  were  appointed  to  take  care  of  the 
property  of  the  church,  and  not  to  the  pastoral  office."  "It 
seems  undeniable  that  they  were  appointed  solely  to  take  care 
of  the  temporal  concerns  of  the  church  ;  and  not,  as  deacons, 
to  preach,  or  to  administer  sacred  ordinances."  "  It  appears 
to  me  very  likely,"  continues  Dr.  Scott,  "that  both  at  this 
and  future  periods,  many  who  were  appointed  deacons  in  the 
frst  instance,  afterward  became  evangelists  or  pastors;  and 
when  they  were  fully  employed,  other  deacons  were  ap- 
pointed." Com.  on  Acts  6:2-6.  Since  then  not  a  particle 
of  evidence  can  be  gathered  from  the  New  Testament,  that 
the  first  deacons  were  ministers  of  the  gospel  at  all,  we  need 
not  trouble  ourselves  to  disprove  the  other  feature  of  the 
system,  which  places  them  in  an  "  order"  inferior  to  elders 
and  bishops.*  It  is  a  subject  of  much  curiosity  with  some 
persons,  to  have  a  distinct  reference  made  to  the  identical 
passage  or  passages  of  Scripture,  upon  which  the  preachers  of 
Methodism  rely  to  establish  this  difference  of  "order"  among 
the  ministers  of  Christ.  Show  us  the  chapter  and  verse,  and 
then  we  will  believe  that  rcyularly  ordained  ministers  of  the 

*  The  "Discipline"  (p.  146)  authorizes  tho  deacon  "to  baptize;"  but  it 
appears  that  one  ordination  by  "the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  a  bishop/'  is 
not  sufficient  to  qualify  for  administering  the  other  sacrament.  But  where 
has  the  Master  said  that  some  of  his  servants  are  authorized  to  officiate  in 
the  ono  ordinance,  and  not  qualified  for  the  other?  A  distinction  of  this 
kind,  in  tbo  lawful  administration  of  the  sacraments,  is  very  well  in  Popery, 
with  hor  "blasphemous  fable"  of  "the  body,  soul  and  divinity;"  but  is  un- 
worthy of  any  church  emancipated  from  her  thraldom. 


264  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XVI. 

gospel,  who  are  called  deacons,  having  received  the  laying  on 
of  hands  but  once,  are  quite  inferior  to  another  set  of  regu- 
larly ordained  ministers  who  are  called  elders,  having  received 
the  laying  on  of  hands  more  than  once.  If  the  distinction  of 
"  order"  consists  in  this,  that  two  ordinations  are  hetter  than 
one,  then  three,  four  and  five,  by  the  same  reasoning,  would 
be  better  still  j  and  thus  may  the  humble  deacon  of  Method- 
ism gradually  ascend  in  the  numerical  scale,  until  he  shall 
seat  himself  in  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  and  nobody  knows  how 
far  above  Pontifex  Maximus  himself.* 

2.  With  regard  to  the  "orders"  of  bishop  and  elder,  these 
names  are  uniformly  used  in  the  New  Testament  as  converti- 
ble terms,  the  one  or  the  other  being  employed  just  as  conve- 
nient to  the  writer.  And  what  is  much  more  conclusive,  the 
very  same  character  and  powers  are  ascribed  to  elders  as  to 
bishops,  thus  proving  that  they  are  the  same,  not  different 
orders  of  ministers.  In  proof  of  these  positions  we  cite  Acts 
20:17-28.  "And  from  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and 
called  the  elders  of  the  church."  "  Take  heed  to  yourselves 
and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  overseers"  (or  bishops).  The  very  same  persons  are 
denominated  by  the  inspired  Apostle,  bishops  and  elders,  and 
that  within  a  few  sentences.  Philip.  1:1.  "  The  bishops 
and  deacons"  of  Philippi  are  addressed.  Titus  1  :  5,  7.  "For 
this  cause  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  rn  order 
the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city — 
for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,"  &c. ;  where,  besides  the 
manifest  fact  that  Paul's  elders  were  the  same  with  Paul's 

*  A  few  illustrations  of  the  practice  in  the  primitive  church  may  not  be 
out  of  place.  Origen  tells  us — "  The  deacons  were  appointed  to  preside 
over  the  tables  of  the  church,  as  we  are  taught  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles." 
Ambrose  in  the  fourth  century  says — "The  deacons  ordinarily  were  not  au- 
thorized to  preach."  Jerome  calls  the  deacon,  "a  minister  of  tables  and 
widows."  And  the  sixth  general  Council  of  Constantinople  decided  that 
"  the  scriptural  deacons  were  no  other  than  overseers  of  the  poor,  and  that 
6uch  was  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  fathers." — (Dr.  Miller.) 


Let.  XVI.  METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  265 

bishops,  we  have  here,  as  in  the  previous  cases,  proof  beyond 
controversy,  that  in  apostolic  times  several  bishops  such  as 
the  New  Testament  sanctions,  were  accustomed  to  reside  in  a 
single  city.  Titus  is  directed  to  ordain  a  number  of  them  in 
every  city.  But  could  these  have  been  such  bishops  as  Meth- 
odism "consecrates,"  of  whose  employment  a  great  part  seems 
to  be  "  to  travel  at  large  among  the  people,"  and  who  cannot 
in  any  instance  cease  "  to  travel  through  the  connexion  at 
large"  without  permission  of  Che  General  Conference,  under 
the  penalty  of  being  deprived  of  their  office  ?  1  Peter 
1 :  1,  2.  "  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort — feed 
the  flock  of  God — taking  the  oversight  thereof"  or,  as  the 
word  in  the  original  signifies,  "  exercising  the  office  and  per- 
forming the  duties  of  a  bishop."  Whether  Paul  and  Peter 
thought  it  needful,  when  about  to  confer  the  office  of  a  scrip- 
tural bishop,  first,  to  ordain  the  man  a  deacon ;  secondly,  to 
ordain  him  an  elder;  and  thirdly  and  lastly,  to  "consecrate" 
him  a  bishop,  we  leave  the  candid  reader  to  judge.  We 
rather  opine  they  were  better  instructed  by  Him,  who,  when 
the  disciples  strove  which  should  be  the  greatest,  set  a  little 
child  in  the  midst,  and  bade  them  take  him  for  a  pattern 
of  true  greatness ;  and  who  hath  left  on  record  the  memora- 
ble sentence  :  "  The  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion 
over  them,  but  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you."  And  as  re- 
gards the  judgment  of  Wesley,  he  expressly  asserts,  "Lord 
King's  account  of  the  primitive  church  convinced  me  many 
years  ago,  that  bishops  and  elders  are  the  same  order." 

The  evidence  against  Episcopacy  is  so  conclusive  that  Wat- 
son affirms,  "  The  argument  drawn  by  the  Presbyterians  from 
the  promiscuous  use  of  these  terms  (bishop  and  elder)  in  the 
New  Testament  is  incontrovertible."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  575.)  And 
even  Dr.  Bangs,  who,  in  the  Appendix  to  Buck's  Theological 
Dictionary,  has  spoken  so  largely  of  the  "  three  orders"  and 
"  the  duties  peculiar  to  each,"  elsewhere  admits  that  "  if  any 
choose  to  say  that  we  acknowledge  two  orders  only,  and  a  su- 
23 


266  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.        Let.  XVI. 

perior  minister  possessing  a  delegated  jurisdiction,  &c.  he  has 
my  full  consent."  Here  then  we  have  a  plain  acknowledg- 
ment that  the  office  of  the  Methodist  bishop  is  of  human  origin 
— that  it  is  superior  to  that  of  elder  solely  by  the  consent 
and  delegation  of  man.  Of  course,  all  that  is  left  to  Meth- 
odist Episcopacy  is  a  mere  human  invention.  And  the 
"divers  orders"  of  the  ministry  appointed  by  "Almighty 
God"  are  reduced  to  two,  deacons  and  elders  !  Whether  the 
number  might  not  be  still  further  reduced,  must  be  decided 
by  those  who  have  examined  the  evidence  of  the  ministerial 
character  of  the  New  Testament  deacons. 

It  is  an  inquiry  also  of  much  interest,  When  did  Method- 
ist Episcopacy  arise  ?  The  Scriptures  know  nothing  about  it 
— from  what  causes  did  it  originate  ?  The  opinion  of  Wes- 
ley upon  the  subject  of  its  introduction  may  be  learned  from 
a  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  then  associated  with  Dr.  Coke  in  the 
bishopric  of  America,  under  date  of  1788.  He  said  :  "There 
is  a  wide  difference  between  the  relation  wherein  you  stand 
to  the  American  Methodists,  and  the  relation  wherein  I  stand 
to  all  the  Methodists.  *  *  *  But  in  one  point  I  am  a 
little  afraid  both  the  Doctor  and  yourself  differ  from  me.  I 
study  to  be  little,  you  study  to  be  great.  I  creep,  you  strut 
along.  I  found  a  school,  you  a  college — nay,  call  it  by  your 
own  names.  *  *  *  One  instance  of  your  greatness  has 
given  me  great  concern.  How  can  you,  how  dare  you  suffer 
yourself  to  be  called  a  bishop  ?  I  shudder,  I  start  at  the 
very  thought.  Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a 
scoundrel,  and  I  am  content.  But  they  shall  never,  by  my 
consent,  call  me  a  bishop.  For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for 
Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this." 

It  is  obvious  from  the  foregoing  extract,  that  the  flattering 
title  which  chimes  so  sweetly  in  the  ear  of  ambitious  ecclesi- 
astics, was  at  that  time  just  beginning  to  be  employed  in  the 
Methodist  church.  And  whether  it  is  probable  that  a  man 
of  Wesley's  strong  sense  would  make  all  this  ado  about  a 


Let.  XVI.  METIIODIST    EPISCOPACY.  2G7 

mere  name,  if  there  had  not  heen  connected  with  it  much  of 
the  arrogant  assumption  of  the  office,  we  submit  to  the  deci- 
sion of  candor. 

Both  Scripture  and  "Wesley  refuse  their  countenance  to 
Methodist  Episcopacy.  How  then  did  it  originate  ?  We 
reply,  from  the  love  of  title  and  distinction  which  is  native 
in  the  human  heart.  It  appears  that  Mr.  "Wesley  first 
appointed  Dr.  Coke,  who  was  directed  to  appoint  Mr.  As- 
bury,  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  churches  in  America, 
but  this  humble  title  did  not  long  satisfy  these  reverend 
gentlemen.  In  four  or  five  years,  they  began  to  employ 
the  term  bishop  in  the  minutes  of  conference ;  and  at  this 
time  it  was  that  Wesley  wrote  the  letter  we  have  quoted 
above,  expressing  his  indignation  and  abhorrence  of  the  sub- 
stitution. It  seems,  moreover,  that  at  least  one  of  these 
gentlemen  had  some  occasional  misgivings  respecting  the 
validity  of  his  episcopal  ordination.  In  1804,  Dr.  Coke  ap- 
plied to  Bishop  White  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  to 
have  himself  and  others  admitted  to  the  episcopacy ;  thus 
acknowledging  his  claim  to  the  office  to  be  utterly  destitute 
of  foundation.  He  tells  Bishop  White  "that  Mr.  Wesley 
had  invested  him  with  episcopal  authority,  so  far  as  he  had  a 
right  to  do  so ;"  but  as  Wesley  never  held  higher  than  the 
priest's  office  in  the  Church  of  England,  it  is  plain  that 
Coke  had  as  good  a  right  to  ordain  to  the  episcopal  office  as 
Wesley ! 

These  facts  prepare  us  to  appreciate  the  statement  of  the 
"  Origin  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  prefixed  to  her 
"  Discipline."  "  Mr.  "Wesley,"  they  tell  us,  "preferring  the 
episcopal  mode  of  church  government  to  any  other,  in  1784 
solemnly  set  apart  Thomas  Coke  for  the  episcopal  office" — a 
priest  ordaining  a  bishop— "that  Mr.  Wesley  delivered  to  Dr. 
Coke  letters  of  episcopal  orders,  and  directed  him  to  set  apart 
Francis  Asbury  to  the  office  of  a  bishop  after  arriving  in 
America."     In  consequence  of  which,  Mr.  Asbury  appears 


268  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XVI. 

to  have  been  hurried  through  the  probationary  degrees  of 
deacon  and  elder;  or,  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Bangs  (Appen- 
dix to  Buck),  "was  ordained  by  Dr.  Coke,  first  to  the  office 
of  deacon,  then  elder,  and  then  superintendent  or  bishop;" 
and  all,  it  seems,  at  the  same  meeting  of  conference  !  And 
last,  not  least,  we  are  told  that  "  the  general  conference 
did  unanimously  receive  the  said  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis 
Asbury  as  their  bishops,  being  fully  satisfied  of  the  validity 
of  their  episcopal  ordination  !" 

In  this  derivation  of  the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  the 
preachers  will  find  much  scope  for  the  exercise  of  faith. 
They  must  believe  that  Priest  Wesley  consecrated  Bishop 
Coke,  imparted  an  authority  he  did  not  possess.  They  must 
believe  that  by  this  means  Thomas  Coke  became  invested  with 
all  the  rights,  titles  and  appurtenances  of  a  bishop,  although 
the  way  Methodist  bishops  are  now  "  constituted"  is  quite 
different.  They  must  believe,  nevertheless,  that  both  inven- 
tions for  making  a  bishop  are  right — that  Thomas  Coke  was 
well  and  truly  made  a  bishop  by  Mr.  Wesley,  only  four  years 
before  he  wrote,  "call  me  knave,  fool,  rascal,  scoundrel,  but 
never  call  me  bishop;"  and  they  must  believe  that  the  letter 
(of  which  this  is  an  extract)  was  directed  (in  1788)  to  Mr. 
Asbury,  and  conveyed  a  most  pungent  reproof  for  permitting 
himself  to  be  clothed  with  an  office,  and  addressed  by  a  title, 
which  Mr.  Wesley  himself,  only  four  years  previously  (1784) 
had  expressly  intended  for  him ;  and  for  this  purpose  Priest 
Wesley  had  consecrated  Bishop  Coke,  and  Bishop  Coke  was 
to  consecrate  Bishop  Asbury.  (See  Discip.  M.  E.  Church.) 

But  it  were  well  if  this  singular  affair  terminated  here. 
There  is  a  much  more  serious  aspect  of  the  affair.  Bishops, 
elders  and  deacons,  have  seated  themselves  in  the  high  places 
of  the  church ;  and  it  becomes  an  inquiry  of  much  import- 
ance —  How  have  they  disposed  of  the  laity  ?  We  reply — 
they  are  so  disposed  of  as  to  be  relieved  of  the  whole  burden 
of  saying   or   doing   any  thing   in  the  secular  or  spiritual 


Let.  XVI.  METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  269 

administration.  All  they  Lave  to  do  is  to  contribute  liberally 
and  submit  implicitly  to  the  dictation  of  their  superiors. 
The  preachers  have  legislated  the  whole  power  over  the  tem- 
poral and  spiritual  concerns  of  the  church  out  of  the  people's 
hands,  and  into  their  own.  This  Wesley  candidly  avowed  as 
his  original  intention.  In  a  letter  to  I.  Mason,  dated  near 
London,  January  13,  1790,  "As  long,"  says  he,  "as  I  live, 
the  people  shall  have  no  share  in  choosing  either  stewards  or 
leaders  among  the  Methodists.  We  have  not,  and  never  had 
any  such  custom.  We  are  no  rejniblicans,  and  never  intend 
to  be.  It  would  be  better  for  thosa  that  are  so  minded  to  go 
quietly  away."  Accordingly,  when,  in  1797,  the  people  in 
some  parts  of  England  began  to  take  the  alarm,  and  peti- 
tioned in  large  numbers,  "  that  they  might  have  a  voice  in  the 
formation  of  their  own  laws,  the  choice  of  their  own  officers, 
and  the  distribution  of  their  own  property  "  (see  Buck's 
Theological  Dictionary,  art.  Methodists),  the  love  of  power 
conquered  the  sense  of  right,  and  these  petitioners  were 
denied  those  privileges,  which  both  reason  and  Scripture 
teach  every  man  are  the  fundamental  principles  of  all  free- 
dom, civil  as  well  as  religious.  In  this  country,  too,  the  free 
spirit  of  our  civil  government  has  extended  its  reforming 
hand  to  the  oppressions  of  religious  tyranny.  A  large  and 
respectable  body  of  Methodists  have  begun  to  feel  and  act 
like  Christian  freemen.  The  rights  and  privileges  for  which 
they  have  been  contending,  are  the  same  for  which  their 
brethren  in  England  petitioned  in  1797.  And  how  have 
their  efforts  toward  emancipation  been  received  ?  Just  as 
might  have  been  expected  from  a  clerical  aristocracy  which 
holds  all  the  power  in  its  own  hands,  and  wields  the 
sword  of  discipline  agreeably  to  its  sovereign  pleasure.  The 
advocates  of  the  people's  rights  were  excommunicated — ex~ 
communicated  for  insisting  upon  those  very  rights  in  ecclesi- 
astical matters,  for  which,  in  state  policy,  our  fathers  fought 
and  bled  in  the  great  revolutionary  struggle,  viz.  "  A  voice  in 
23* 


270  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMLNIANTSM.         Let.  XVI. 

making  their  own  lares,  electing  their  own  rulers,  and  distrib- 
uting their  own  property." 

To  these  statements  it  has  been  replied,  "  that  as  every 
preacher,  before  he  can  be  admitted  by  the  conference,  must 
be  recommended  by  the  laity,  and  as  the  conference  cannot 
move  a  single  step  toward  his  admission,  without  such  recom- 
mendation, it  follows  that  the  laity  are  the  origin  and  source  of 
all  power  in  the  church."  But  Dr.  Bangs,  in  the  Appendix 
to  Buck,  informs  us  that  "a  person  thinking  himself  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the  gospel,  first  makes  known 
his  views  and  exercises  to  the  preacher  having  charge  of  the 
circuit,  who,  if  he  considers  the  applicant  a  fit  person  (here 
is  the  origin  of  all  power),  grants  him  license  to  exhort,"  &c. 
Besides,  if  it  were  correct  that  the  laity  must  recommend  the 
candidate  to  the  Conference  before  he  can  be  received,  it 
would  be  a  marvelous  proof  of  their  holding  all  the  power  in 
their  hands,  because,  forsooth,  a  man  who  wishes  to  turn 
preacher,  must  get  a  few  of  his  friends  to  recommend  him  ! 
The  quarterly  conferences,  it  is  further  said,  are  composed 
partly  of  laymen  ;  and  these  bodies  are  the  door  of  entrance 
to  the  ministry,  &c.  But  these  laymen,  according  to  Dr. 
Bangs,  "are  the  stewards,  leaders  and  exhorters"  of  the 
circuit,  appointed  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  preachers,  and 
of  course  are  completely  under  the  control  of  their  originators. 

Indeed,  we  may  fearlessly  affirm  that  there  is  not  a  form 
of  church  government  on  earth  (the  Papacy  excepted),  so 
radically  opposed  to  republicanism  as  Methodism.  The  legis- 
lative, executive  and  judicial  powers  are  all  placed  in  the 
hands  of  a  privileged  aristocracy  —  the  preachers ;  and  at 
their  sovereign  nod,  both  men  and  money  are  disposed  of,  to 
promote  whatever  purposes  piety,  ambition,  proselytism,  or 
whim,  may  dictate. 

In  proof  of  these  statements,  the  Rev.  Professor  S.  S. 
Schmucker,  of  the  Lutheran  church,  himself  a  decided 
Arminian,  has  collected  from  the  "  Discipline"  the  following 
particulars  of  this  clerical  usurpation  : 


Let.  XVI.  METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  271 

1.  "  The  exclusive  right  of  suffrage  in  the  election  of  del- 
egates to  the  general  conference  and  of  bishops."  A  thing 
unknown  in  any  other  Protestant  church. 

L'.  "Exclusive  eligibility  both  to  the  annual  and  general 
conferences."  In  all  other  Protestant  churches,  laymen  are 
eligible  to  the  church  courts. 

3.  "  The  exclusive  unlimited  power  to  legislate  for  the  whole 
church  in  matters  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  forms  of  wor- 
ship and  minor  regulations."  The  traveling  preachers  can 
change  and  reverse  whenever  they  please,  every  item  of  doc- 
trine,* discipline  and  forms  of  worship;  and  no  layman,  nor 
even  local  preacher,  can  have  a  word  to  say  in  it. 

4.  "  The  exclusive  right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  moral 
conduct  of  traveling  preachers."  In  other  churches  such 
trials  are  conducted  by  laymen  and  ministers  jointly. 

5.  "  The  exclusive  right  of  appointing  all  committees  for 
the  trial  of  lay  members,  without  the  power  on  the  part  of 
the  accused  to  challenge  any  member  of  such  committee, 
though  he  could  prove  him  his  bitterest  enemy. 

6.  "  The  exclusive  right  to  conduct  and  control  the  book 
concern,  and  appropriate  its  extensive  profits  exclusively  to 
their  own  benefit. 

7.  "  The  exclusive  right  of  eligibility  to  the  editorship  of 
the  periodicals  of  the  Methodist  church :  local  preachers  and 
laymen  are  excluded  by  the  Discipline. 

8.  "  The  exclusive  right  to  hold  and  control  all  the  Metho- 

*  It  may  perhaps  be  questioned,  whethor  the  preachers  have  power,  ac- 
cording to  the  Discipline,  to  change  tho  doctrines  of  the  Methodist  church. 
It  is  admitted  that  among  the  provisions  for  altering  and  amending  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  it  is  said,  "  excepting  the  first  article,"  which  relates  to  doc- 
trine. But  cannot  the  same  power  which  inserted  that  exception  strike  it 
out?  Cannot  a  majority  of  the  Genoral  Conference  erase  that  exception 
whenever  they  please  ?  The  way  is  then  open  to  abolish  every  doctrine  of 
the  system,  and  substitute  in  its  stead  any  other  ism  which  pleases  them 
best.  The  people  are  therefore  absolutely  dependent  upon  the  preachers, 
whether  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church  is  Universali3t,  Socinian,  or  Po- 
pish, in  her  doctrinal  testimony ! 


272  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XVI. 

dist  churches  and  parsonages,  deeded  according  to  the  Discip- 
line— to  say  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  occupy  them,  with- 
out consulting  the  wishes  of  the  laity  who  paid  for  them. 
Even  the  trustees  are  nominated  exclusively  by  the  traveling 
preachers.  In  every  other  Protestant  church  in  the  land, 
each  congregation  has  control  of  its  own  parsonage  and  church 
property. 

9.  "  The  exclusive  right  to  fix  their  own  salary,  that  is,  the 
amount  to  which  they  may  retain  possession  of  their  collec- 
tions, and  receive  dividends  from  the  several  funds.  In 
every  other  church,  the  people  decide  for  themselves  what 
sum  they  will  allow  their  minister. 

10.  "  The  exclusive  right  of  their  bishops  to  determine  what 
minister  each  congregation  shall  have,  without  consulting 
the  wishes  of  the  people.  In  all  other  churches  of  our  land, 
the  congregation  invites  the  person  they  think  best  suited 
to  them. 

11.  "  An  entire  irresponsibility  to  the  people  for  all  their 
acts,  legislative,  judicial  and  executive,  and  for  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  extensive  funds  possessed  by  them ;  no  power  on 
earth  can  call  them  to  account."  Thus  far  Dr.  Schmucker. 
We  are  now  prepared  to  understand  Dr.  Bangs,  when  he  as- 
serts in  his  "  Vindication" — "  Every  part  of  our  government 
is  elective."  But  who  are  the  voters  ?  The  reverend  clergy. 
And  is  not  the  Pope  elected  by  his  reverend  cardinals? 

In  concluding  this  Letter,  we  remark,  that  some  difference 
of  opinion  appears  to  exist  among  the  leaders  of  Methodist 
Episcopacy.  Messrs.  Bangs  and  Emory  say,  "  their  church 
government  is  in  fact  and  name  episcopal ;"  and  Dr.  Emory 
adds  :  "In  whatever  sense  distinct  ordinations  constitute  dis- 
tinct orders,  in  the  same  sense  Mr.  Wesley  certainly  intended 
that  we  should  have  three  orders."  But  Dr.  Bond,  senior, 
affirms  that  "  the  episcopacy  is  not  a  distinct  ministerial  order, 
but  only  a  superior  office;  and  that  is  the  light  in  which  it  has 
always  been  considered."     Now,  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Mus- 


Let.  XVII.  CLERICAL  USURPATIONS.  273 

grave,  "if  nothing  more  is  meant  by  their  distinct  'episcopal' 
ordination,  than  the  giving  of  the  power  of  general  superin- 
tendence, why  talk  about  their  three  orders,  and  their  due 
*  order  and  succession!!' — If  men  will  be  guilty  (if  such 
nonsense,  they  must  expect  to  be  laughed  at  for  their  sim- 
plicity; and  by  none  more  heartily  than  Episcopalians  them- 
selves, whose  forms  they  so  absurdly  imitate." 

As  to  the  fact  that  the  preachers  have  all  ecclesiastical 
power,  executive,  legislative  and  judicial,  in  their  own  hands, 
it  is  "a  bad  eminence"  which  all  right-thinking  men  should 
shun,  for  their  own  sakes,  as  well  as  for  the  liberty  and 
security  of  the  laity. 


LETTER    XVII. 

PREACHER  USURPATIONS— CONTROL  OF  PROPERTY— AMERI- 
CAN INDEPENDENCE  "THE  WORK  OP  THE  DEVIL." 

Rev.  Sir — In  the  list  of  clerical  exactions  stated  by  Prof. 
Schmucker,  there  is  one  item  that  requires  a  separate  consid- 
eration : 

XII.  The  Difficulties  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  in 

RELATION  TO  CERTAIN  RlGHTS  OF  PROPERTY. 

In  all  other  denominations,  with  the  single  exception  of 
Popery,  when  a  congregation  build  a  house  of  worship,  it  is 
their  own  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  Not  so,  however,  in 
Methodist  Episcopacy ;  for  the  preachers  require  all  such  val- 
uable interests  to  be  deeded  to  them  and  placed  entirely  be- 
yond the  control  of  the  original  owners.  It  is  true  the  form 
of  deed  in  the  Discipline  (p.  176)  conveys  the  property  to 
trustees  in  the  first  instance — but  mark  !  It  is  "in  trust  that 
they  shall  build  a  house  or  place  of  worship  for  the  use  of  the 
members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  according  to  the  rules  and  discipline  which,  from  time 


274  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.       Let.  XVII. 

to  time,  may  be  agreed  on  and  adopted  by  the  PREACHERS  of 
said  church."  "  And  in  further  trust  that  they  shall  at  all 
times  permit  such  preachers"  u  to  preach  and  expound  God's 
holy  word  therein,"  &c.  &c.  The  property,  then,  is  for  the 
use  of  the  people  according  to  the  rules  adopted  by  the  preach- 
ers, and  they  can  have  the  use  of  it  no  longer  than  they 
quietly  submit  to  those  rules,  however  unjust  or  oppressive 
they  may  be.  All  that  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  enable  an 
avaricious  priesthood  to  take  quiet  possession  of  the  immense 
and  accumulating  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church, 
is  to  enact  rules  sufficiently  oppressive  to  force  away  the 
people,  and  the  whole  wealth  of  the  church  is  theirs,  deeded 
and  confirmed  to  them  forever. 

In  defense  of  this  feature  of  the  system,  it  has  been  said, 
that  if  "  the  preachers  cease  to  be  Methodists,  they  have  no 
right  to  the  use  of  the  meeting  houses,  and  the  same  is  true 
of  the  members."  But  is  it  true  that  any  conference  of 
preachers  have  the  right  to  make  laws,  the  purport  of  which 
is — "If  you,  the  people,  exercise  your  rights  of  conscience, 
and  'cease  to  be  Methodists,'  you  must  leave  your  property  in 
our  hands — it  is  yours  no  longer  1"  Is  this  toleration  or  re- 
ligious liberty  ?  Who  gives  the  preachers  a  right  to  impose 
a  tax  of  this  kind  upon  as  many  of  their  people  as  become 
tired  of  their  ecclesiastical  supervision  ?  The  law  of  God  will 
regard  property  thus  obtained  as  "  the  wages  of  unrighteous- 
ness." 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  if  a  Methodist  Episcopal  congre- 
gation unanimously  resolve  to  unite  with  another  denomina- 
tion of  Christians,  say  the  Protestant  Methodists,  they  are 
obliged  to  surrender  their  house  of  worship,  to  forsake  the 
temple  which  their  labors  and  wealth  had  reared  for  their 
accommodation,  to  leave  all  in  the  hands  of  Methodist  Epis- 
copal preachers,  and  commence  anew  from  the  foundation. 
They  cannot  touch  a  cent  of  it.  The  property  is  theirs  no 
longer  than  they  continue  obedient  and  faithful  servants  of 


Let.  XVII.  CLERICAL   USURPATIONS.  275 

the  preachers,  and  submit  to  be  governed  by  their  rules. 
And  if  every  Methodist  congregation  in  the  land  were  succes- 
sively to  renounce  the  system,  unanimously  renounce  it,  they 
could  not  keep  possession  of  a  cent  of  their  property — it  must 
lie  in  the  hands  of  the  preachers  to  be  disposed  of  according 
to  their  "rules."  A  congregation  may  wish  to  make  sale  of 
the  house  they  have  erected  out  of  their  own  funds :  but  no ! 
they  dare  not.  And  even  when,  in  case  of  debt,  the  trustees 
are  authorized  to  sell  the  property  to  pay  it,  the  surplus  is 
deposited  (not  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees,  or  returned  to 
those  who  are  its  lawful  owners,  but)  "  in  the  hands  of  the 
steward,  to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  next  annual  conference" — 
it  is  added,  indeed,  ufor  the  use  of  said  society" — as  much  as 
to  say,  "we,  the  preachers,  think  you,  the  rightful  owners,  do 
not  know  what  use  to  make  of  your  money — we  will  kindly 
relieve  you  of  the  burden  of  it.  To  allege  that  the  preachers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church  will  always  be  men  of  too 
much  probity, and  uprightness  to  abuse  the  power  placed  in 
their  hands,  is  only  to  show  the  extreme  credulity  of  the  ob- 
jector. All  history  testifies  that  the  direct  method  to  corrupt 
the  best  of  men,  is  to  place  at  their  disposal  unlimited  and 
uncontrolled  power,  whether  of  wealth,  or  any  other  kind  of 
influence.  Mankind  have  learned  an  impressive  lesson  of  the 
working  of  such  a  system,  from  the  corruptions  and  abomina- 
tions of  the  Papal  hierarchy,  possessing,  as  they  do,  and  con- 
trolling millions  of  property  wrung  from  the  small  earnings 
of  poverty,  by  the  hard  hand  of  superstition  and  falsehood. 
Let  the  myriads  of  lazy,  worthless  priests,  monks,  and  other 
"religious,"  who  fatten  on  these  spoils,  put  Protestants  on 
their  guard.  Rome  spiritual,  as  well  as  Rome  political,  was 
not  built  in  a  day.  Beware  of  the  beginnings  of  evil,  which 
are  as  the  letting  out  of  water.  And  the  example  of  Protest- 
ant England  is  scarcely  less  admonitory — her  pampered  arch- 
bishops, bishops  and  other  clergy,  having  saddled  their  rich 
benefices  upon  a  people  who  in  large  part  reject  with  contempt 


276  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.       Let.  XVII. 

their  spiritual  ministrations.  And  we  should  also  recollect 
that  seventeen  years  ago  (1843)  the  meeting  houses  and  par- 
sonages under  control  of  the  preachers,  were  estimated  at 
three  millions  eight  hundred  thousand  dollars — and  that  be- 
sides these,  they  had  their  " chartered  fund,"  their  "book 
concern,"  their  magazines,  weekly  papers,  &c.  It  was  there- 
fore a  low  estimate  which  placed  the  whole,  even  then,  at 
from  four  to  Jive  millions  of  dollars.  From  the  increase  of 
the  body,  no  less  than  from  the  common  rise  of  the  value 
of  property,  these  various  sources  of  income  may  reasonably 
be  estimated  now,  at  not  less  than  ten  millions  of  dollars.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  all  these  funds  are  under  the  control  of 
the  preachers,  and  the  proceeds  are  for  the  exclusive  use  of 
themselves  and  their  families — as  will  be  fully  proved  in  a 
future  Letter.  On  the  first  of  January,  1842,  the  net  capital 
of  the  "  Book  Concern"  was  more  than  $600,000 ;  and  the 
net  profits  for  that  year  were  nearly  $40,000.  As  Dr.  Mus- 
grave  well  remarks — "  It  is  idle  to  say  that  these  preachers 
are  pious  men  and  will  not  abuse  their  power.  We  know 
they  are  but  men,  and  by  their  own  showing,  the  best  of 
them  may  *  fall  from  grace.'  " 

The  ultimate  tendencies  of  a  system  such  as  we  have  been 
examining,  present  to  the  inquisitive  mind  a  melancholy  pros- 
pect. The  experience  of  all  Popish  countries  proves,  that  the 
most  direct  method  of  enslaving  any  people  in  a  political 
point  of  view,  is,  to  take  from  them  their  independence  in 
religion.  Bring  them  to  suffer  the  privilege  and  right  of 
self-government  in  religion  to  pass  into  the  hands  of  others — 
persuade  them  to  surrender  the  right  of  thinking  and  acting 
like  Christian  freemen,  and  you  have  a  people  prepared,  on 
the  first  opportunity,  to  submit  the  trouble  of  political  rule  to 
any  aspiring  demagogue  who  may  volunteer  his  services. 
The  habit  of  implicit  submission  to  the  dictation  of  others, 
is  soon  formed;  and  what  was  at  first  esteemed  a  precious 
right,  will  soon  come  to  be  regarded  as  an  oppressive  burden. 


Lkt.  XVII.  CLERICAL   USURPATIONS.  277 

The  spirit  of  lofty  independence  will  be  broken,  and  the  man 
will  be  merged  in  the  abject  slave.  The  British  monarch, 
James  I.  had  some  skill  in  this  matter.  When  assigning  a 
reason  for  wishing  to  put  down  Presbytery  and  elevate  Epis- 
copacy, he  delivered  the  royal  maxim — "no  bishop,  no  king" 
— he  uttered  a  sentiment  which  has  been  repeated  a  thousand 
times  as  a  favorite  and  acknowledged  principle,  by  the  enemies 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  So  also,  a  writer  in  the  London 
Quarterly  Review,  a  work  devoted  to  the  interests  of  episco- 
pacy and  toryism,  uses  the  following  strong  language  :  "  Cer- 
tain it  is,  that  monarchy  and  episcopacy  are  much  more  nearly 
connected  than  writers  of  bad  faith  or  little  reflection  have 
sought  to  persuade  mankind."  "  There  is  an  insensible,  but 
natural  inclination  toward  democracy,"  says  the  same  writer, 
"  which  arises  from  the  principles  of  a  popular  church  govern- 
ment." *  On  the  other  hand,  the  natural  alliance  between  a 
popular  church  government  and  civil  liberty,  has  been  alter- 
nately the  theme  of  praise  from  its  friends,  and  of  reproach 
from  its  enemies,  from  time  immemorial.  Clarendon  and 
Hume  acknowledge  it  in  all  the  bitterness  of  their  hostility. 

But  it  has  been  replied,  that  the  traveling  preachers  cannot 
righteously  be  charged  with  being  a  clerical  aristocracy, 
because  "  they  have  left  in  the  hands  of  the  laity  the  all- 
important  power  of  withholding  every  cent  of  pecuniary  sup- 
port." And  Dr.  Bangs,  in  his  "Vindication,"  chap.  10,  on 
"  the  privileges  of  members  of  our  church,"  states  the  third 
to  be,  that  "  no  member  can  be  censured  for  not  contributing 
to  the  support  of  the  ministry."     Is  it  indeed  so  ?     On  page 

*  Tho  unhappy  Charles,  during  his  conflicts  with  the  Parliament,  was 
urged  to  give  his  consont  to  abolish  Episcopacy.  This  he  refused,  because, 
among  other  things,  Episcopacy  was  more  friendly  to  monarchy  than  Pres- 
bytery. "  Show  me,"  said  ho,  "any  precedent  where  presbyterial  govern- 
ment and  regal  were  together,  without  perpetual  rebellions."  "And  it  can- 
not be  otherwise,  for  tho  ground  of  their  doctrine  is  anti-monarchical." 
"There  was  not  a  wiser  man  since  Solomon,  than  he  who  said,  'No  bishop, 
no  king.' " 

24 


278  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.       Let.  XVII. 

185  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  is  a  rule  requiring  "  weekly 
class  collections  wherever  it  is  practicable,"  to  meet  the  allow- 
ances to  the  preachers,  &c.  And  on  page  98  they  say,  that 
in  "cases  of  neglect  of  duties  of  any  kind,  or  disobedience 
to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  church,"  the  offender  is  on 
the  third  offense  to  be  "  cut  off"  or  excommunicated.  Now 
is  it  a  duty  of  "  any  kind,"  or  any  part  of  the  "  order  and 
discipline"  to  contribute  at  the  class  collections?  Then,  on 
the  third  instance  of  neglect  to  pay  the  preacher,  all  Orthodox 
Methodists  enjoy  the  precious  privilege  of  being  regularly 
excluded  from  the  church !  The  trouble  of  making  and 
executing  laws  for  the  government  of  the  brethren  is  not 
to  go  unrewarded — the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  The 
preachers  bear  the  burden  of  exclusive  legislation — they  re- 
lieve the  people  of  all  part  and  lot  in  that  matter.  Is  it  not 
right  that  they  should  be  punished,  if  they  refuse  to  be  taxed 
for  these  inestimable  "  privileges  ?" 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  we  are  prepared  to  appreciate 
the  zeal  with  which,  some  years  since,  Methodist  preachers 
reechoed  the  hue  and  cry  of  infidels,  that  the  civil  and  reli- 
gious freedom  of  the  country  was  in  danger  from  Presbyte- 
rianism.  Many  persons  will  remember  the  time  and  circum- 
stances of  this  disgraceful  affair.  Their  great  paper,  the 
Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  published  an  article  enti- 
tled, "  Murder  will  out,"  professing  to  discover  to  the  world 
some  dreadful  conspiracy  which  the  Presbyterians  were  plot- 
ting against  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  of  the  country — 
designing  to  unite  the  Presbyterian  church  with  the  civil  gov- 
ernment, and  hold  the  posts  of  honor  and  emolument  in  their 
own  hands.  Of  course  their  clergy  were  to  reap  the  rich  re- 
wards of  the  successful  execution  of  this  scheme  !  Twenty 
or  thirty  thousand  copies  of  this  infidel  publication  imme- 
diately issued  from  New  York,  and  the  circuit  riders  were 
flying  from  one  end  of  the  land  to  the  other,  bearing  the  im- 
portant news.     Their  pulpits  and  even  the  day  of  rest  were 


LOT.  XVII.  CLEKICAL   USURPATIONS.  279 

employed  to  trumpet  the  wonderful  discovery  !  "  I  do  be- 
lieve," said  one  of  these  ardent  patriots,  "  they  are  secretly 
combining  to  get  their  religion  established ;  and  I  would  have 
no  hesitancy  in  advancing  the  above  ideas  and  language  from 
the  pulpit."     (Letter  of  a  circuit  rider,  dated  August  5, 1829.) 

Intelligent  men  of  all  classes  will  not  soon  forget  that  this 
crusade  was  preached  by  the  very  men  whose  form  of  ecclesi- 
astical government  is  in  direct  contrast  with  our  republican 
institutions;  and  whose  spiritual  forefathers  were  those  preach- 
ers who,  whilst  Dr.  Witherspoon  and  other  Presbyterians, 
both  ministers  and  laity  (with  perhaps  no  exception),  were 
nobly  stemming  the  tide  of  oppression,  basely  fled  from  the 
land  of  their  adoption,  and  consigned  her  sons  to  the  sword 
of  tyranny,  the  doom  of  rebels.  "  During  the  revolutionary 
war,"  says  Dr.  Bangs,  "all  the  preachers,  except  Mr.  Asbury,* 
returned  to  their  native  land."  Yes,  they  loved  "  their  native 
land"  too  well  to  find  rest  to  the  sole  of  their  foot  in  a  coun- 
ty where  grinding  oppression  had  roused  the  spirit  of  inde- 
pendence, and  tories  had  fallen  into  disrepute.  "All  the 
Methodists  there,"  says  Wesley,  "were  firm  for  the  govern- 
ment (that  is,  were  all  tories),  and  on  that  account  were 
persecuted  by  the  rebels."     Wesley's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  411. 

Such  then,  is  the  sort  of  men  who  are  so  jealous  for  our 
liberties  and  so  prompt  to  detect  and  expose  Presbyterian 
plots  for  their  overthrow !  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten,  that 
these  patriotic  preachers,  who,  in  the  language  of  the  founder 
of  their  system,  "  are  no  republicans  (in  ecclesiastical  mat- 
ters) and  never  intend  to  be,"  are  in  the  constant  practice  of 

*  Mr.  Asbury  concealed  himself  among  the  tories  of  the  State  of  Dela- 
ware. And  yet  when  the  storm  had  scarce  blown  over,  their  patriotism 
bursts  into  a  blaze ;  and  bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  present  an  address  to 
General  Washington,  in  which  they  speak  of  "  our  civil  and  religious  liber- 
ties transmitted  to  us  by  th  providonce  of  God  and  the  glorious  revolution  .'" 
And  "the  most  excellent  constitution  of  these  Suites,  at  present  the  admira- 
tion of  the  world,  and  its  great  exemplar  for  imitation!!"  (See  Arnimiou 
Magazine,  vol.  i.  p.  284.) 


280  DIFFICULTIES   OF  AKMINIANISM.        Let.  XVII. 

circulating,  by  means  of  their  book  concern,  sentiments  which 
are  high  tory  and  treasonable.  The  following  passages  from 
the  third  volume  of  Wesley's  Sermons,  pp.  406,  408,  will 
illustrate  our  meaning — "  Thus,"  says  he,  "we  have  observed 
each  of  these  wheels  apart — on  the  one  hand,  trade,  wealth, 
luxury,  sloth  and  wantonness,  spreading  far  and  wide  through 
the  American  provinces ;  on  the  other,  the  spirit  of  indepen- 
dency diffusing  itself  from  north  to  south.  Let  us  observe 
how  the  wise  and  gracious  providence  of  God  uses  one  to 
check  the  other,  and  even  employs  (if  so  strong  an  expres- 
sion may  be  allowed)  Satan  to  cast  out  Satan.  Probably 
that  subtle  spirit  (the  devil)  hoped  by  adding  to  all  those  other 
vices  the  spirit  of  independency,  to  have  overturned  the  whole 
work  of  God,  as  well  as  the  British  government  in  North 
America."  So  it  seems  that  independence  and  the  overthrow 
of  the  British  government  in  this  country,  were  the  ivorks  of 
the  devil!  Again:  "The  spirit  of  independence  which  our 
poet  so  justly  terms  'the  glorious  fault  of  angels  and  of  gods' 
(that  is  in  plain  terms,  of  devils),  the  same  which  so  many 
call  liberty,  is  overruled  by  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God." 
This  is  truly  a  bright  picture  of  our  glorious  revolution,  and 
of  the  principal  actors  in  its  trying  scenes.  Their  love  of 
liberty  was,  after  all,  only  "  the  glorious  fault  of  devils  !" 

These  statements  are  abundantly  confirmed  by  Southey, 
in  his  Life  of  Wesley.  He  argued,  we  are  told,  against  the 
principle  that  representation  should  accompany  taxation,  and 
asserted  that  the  people  had  a  right  to  nothing  but  protection  ; 
that  the  tea  tax  was  legal  and  reasonable^  and  that  the  war 
of  the  Revolution  was  of  Puritan  origin.  He  alleged  that 
the  greatest  degree  of  liberty  was  to  be  enjoyed  under  a 
monarchy.  His  opposition  to  our  war  of  independence  was 
most  intense.  He  said  of  it,  I  am  "  pleading  the  cause  of 
my  king  and  country,  yea,  of  every  country ;"  "  pleading 
against  those  principles  that  naturally  tend  to  anarchy  and 
confusion."   And  he  earnestly  endeavored  to  enlist  the  whole 


Let.  XVII.  CLERICAL   USURPATIONS.  281 

Methodist  body  against  the  American  cause.  In  a  letter 
dated  1782,  he  says :  "  Two  or  three  years  ago,  when  the 
kingdom  was  in  great  danger,  I  made  an  offer  to  the  govern- 
ment of  raising  men;"  thus  it  was  owing  to  the  moderation 
of  the  British  government,  more  than  to  the  principles  of 
Methodism,  that  its  leader  did  not  take  his  spiritual  power 
into  the  work  of  recruiting  sergeant  for  the  British  army,  to 
raise  men  among  Methodists  for  the  butchery  of  our  fathers. 

We  could  cover  with  the  mantle  of  charity  the  weakness 
and  errors  of  John  Wesley,  a  British  subject  and  a  staunch 
royalist ;  but  when  we  behold  these  self-constituted  guardians 
of  our  liberties,  these  zealous  watchmen,  eager  to  sound  the 
alarm  of  approaching  danger  from  the  ambitious  designs  of 
Presbyterians  —  when  we  find  these  incorruptible  patriots 
sending  out,  as  on  the  wings  of  the  four  winds  of  heaven, 
thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  copies  of  a  work,  which 
breathes  the  very  spirit  of  toryism  and  treason,  it  is  difficult 
to  find  a  covering  wide  enough  to  hide  their  guilt  and  shame. 

Further:  If  the  overthrow  of  the  British  power  and  the 
establishment  of  American  independence,  were  the  works 
OP  the  devil,  as  Wesley  affirms,  and  the  preachers  print 
and  publish  to  the  world,  must  they  not  feel  themselves 
bouud  to  destroy  "  the  works  of  the  devil  ?"  Are  we  then  to 
understand  that  the  Methodist  hierarchy  is  leagued  together 
to  overthrow  our  republican  institufiojis  ?  And  are  we  further 
to  understand  that  the  charge  against  Presbyterianism  of 
"secretly  combining"  against  the  liberties  of  the  country, 
was  only  a  piece  of  generalship,  a  skillful  diversion  in  favor 
of  their  own  deep  conspiracy  ! ! 

But  if  the  preachers  really  disapprove  of  ascribing  Amer- 
ican independence  to  the  agency  of  the  devil,  why  do  they 
print  and  publish,  and  widely  circulate  such  sentiments? 
w  Because,"  it  is  replied,  "  we  do  not  choose  to  mutilate  the 
volumes!"  To  mutilate  the  volumes!  To  mutilate  is  "to 
deprive  of  some  essential  part."  And  are  those  "  essential 
21* 


282  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.       Let.  XVII. 

parts "  of  a  volume  of  sermons,  which  ascribe  our  liberty 
and  independence  to  the  devil !  We  should  like  to  inquire 
whether  the  preachers  regard  the  tory  and  treasonable  senti- 
ments uttered  by  Wesley  as  true  or  false  ?  If  they  say  they 
are  true,  then  do  they  confess  themselves  as  staunch  tories  as 
ever  their  spiritual  forefathers  were.  If  they  say  they  are  false, 
then  we  ask,  would  it  mutilate  a  volume  of  sermons  to  omit  its 
falsehood!  Or  do  these  preachers  and  publishers  regard 
falsehood  as  an  "  essential  part"  of  a  volume  of  sermons?  But 
are  these  gentlemen  always  so  excessively  scrupulous  in  the 
matter  of  mutilating  volumes  ?  Do  they  not  publish  the 
works  of  Calvinistic  authors,  retaining  their  names,  whilst 
every  shred  of  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism  is  eviscerated 
and  suppressed  ?  Or  is  it  only  Arminian  toryism  that  must 
not  be  mutilated  ? 

We  cannot  but  hope  that  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts 
will  henceforth  impose  silence  on  the  preachers  in  regard  to 
the  dark  designs  of  Presbyterians.  And  if  they  should  com- 
mence the  work  of  "  mutilation,"  we  would  suggest  the 
following  additional  passages  as  not  unworthy  of  their  atten- 
tion, along  with  the  extracts  from  the  sermons,  viz.  "  The 
supposition  that  the  people  are  the  origin  of  power,  is  every 
way  indefensible."  "  You  (Americans)  profess  to  be  con- 
tending for  liberty,  but  it  is  a  vain,  empty  profession,"  &c. 
But  the  best  is  yet  to  come.  "  No  governments  under  heaven 
are  so  despotic  as  the  republican  :  no  subjects  are  gov- 
erned in  so  arbitrary  a  manner  as  those  of  a  commonwealth." 
"  Should  any  man  talk  or  write  of  the  Dutch  government  as 
every  cobbler  does  of  the  English,  he  would  be  laid  in  irons 
before  he  knew  where  he  was.  And  woe  be  to  him.  Repub- 
lics show  no  mercy."  These  tory  sentiments  are  scattered 
among  the  families  of  this  republic,  as  the  opinions  of  a  man 
who,  they  are  taught  to  believe,  was  only  not  infallible.  See 
Works  of  Wesley,  vol.  iii.  pp.  130-134. 

In  striking  contrast  with  this  singular  medley  of  Methodist 


Let.  XVII.  CLERICAL   USURPATIONS.  283 

Episcopacy,  let  us  hear  the  venerable  Dr.  Miller  describe  the 
episcopacy  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  good  sense  : 

"  We  suppose,"  remarks  Dr.  M.  "  that  there  is,  properly 
speaking,  but  one  order  of  gospel  ministers  ;  that  every  regu- 
lar pastor  of  a  congregation  is  a  scriptural  hishop ;  or  that 
every  presbyter  who  has  been  set  apart,  '  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  presbytery'  (1  Tim.  4:  14),  who  has  the 
pastoral  charge  of  a  particular  church,  is,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  a  bishop;  having  a  right,  in  company  with  others, 
his  equals,  to  ordain  and  to  perform  every  service  pertaining 
to  the  episcopal  office.  We  suppose  that  there  are,  indeed, 
two  other  classes  of  church  officers,  viz.  ruling  elders  and  dea- 
cons; but  that  neither  of  these  are  authorized  to  labor  in  word 
and  doctrine,  or  to  administer  the  Christian  sacraments.  We 
suppose  there  is  a  plain  distinction  made  in  Scripture  between 
ciders  who  only  rule,  and  elders  who  also  '  labor  in  word  and 
doctrine.'     1  Tim.  5  :  17. 

"  Our  judicatories,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  are  all 
made  up  of  laymen  as  well  as  clergymen ;  and  in  all  of  them, 
excepting  the  highest,  if  the  laity  exercise  their  rights,  there 
will  be  a  larger  number  of  the  former  than  of  the  latter;  and 
in  the  highest  judicatory,  an  equal  number.  This,  of  course, 
gives  to  the  laity  of  our  communion  constant  and  intimate 
access  to  all  our  plans  and  measures,  and  all  the  opportunity 
that  can  be  desired  to  exercise  their  full  share  of  power  in 
controlling  those  measures.  The  people  cannot  be  oppressed, 
uuless  they  conspire  to  oppress  themselves  I"  (Letter  to  a 
geutleman  of  Baltimore,  p.  72.)  This  conclusive  reasoning 
would  doubtless  lack  most  of  its  force,  if  the  laymen,  of  whom 
Dr.  M.  speaks,  were,  like  the  "  class-leaders,  stewards,  trus- 
tees and  exhorters  "  of  Methodism,  indebted  exclusively  to  the 
preachers  for  their  appointment  or  nomination  :  but  this  is 
so  far  from  being  the  fact,  that  the  laymen  who  participate 
in  all  the  councils  of  Presbyterianism,  are  the  representatives 
of  the   congregations,  chosen   by   a  majority  of  votes,  and 


284  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.       Let.  XVII. 

delegated  by  their  own   deliberate,  uncontrolled  choice  and 
designation,  to  this  special  duty.     This  is  literally  the  fact  in 
every  instance,  in  regard  to   the  three  lower  forms  of  judica- 
tory ;  and  may  be  literally  true  of  their  appointment  to  the 
highest,  whenever  the  laity  exercise  their  constitutional  right 
to  have  a  majority  in  the  presbyteries  which  elect  the  delegates. 
But  the  inquiry  may  here  arise — Is  there  any  scriptural 
warrant  for  a  system  of  church  government  so  thoroughly 
republican    as  this  ?     Does   the  word  of  God  authorize  the 
commitment  of  ecclesiastical  power  so  entirely  into  the  hands 
of  the  people  ?     In  reply,  we  refer  to  the  record  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  deacons,  in  the  6th  chapter  of  Acts.     Let  the 
inquirer  open  his  Bible  and  read — "  The  twelve  called  the 
multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them    and    said :    Brethren, 
look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men,  whom  we   may  appoint 
over  this  business.     And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multi- 
tude, and  they  chose  Stephen  and  Philip,"  &c.     (Not  the 
preachers,  nor  bishops,  nor  even  the  Apostles  chose  them ;  not 
even  inspired  Apostles  would  venture  to  take  the  right  of 
election  out  of  the  hands   of  the  people.)     "Whom,"  con- 
tinues the  record,  "  they  set  before  the  Apostles,  and  when 
they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on  them."     Can  any 
thing  be   more    evident   than    that   the    first    deacons  were 
elected  by  the  voice  of  the  people,  or  by  "  the  whole  multitude 
of  the  disciples  ?'     Now  turn  to  the  32d  page  of  the   Meth- 
odist Book  of  Discipline — "  How  is  a  traveling  deacon  con- 
stituted ?"     "  By  the  election  " — of  the  people  ?  of  the  whole 
•multitude  of  the  disciples  f     No  !  but  "  of  the  majority  of  the 
yearly  conference,"  which  is  composed  exclusively  of  preach- 
ers; not  a  solitary  layman  holding  a  seat  among  them.     The 
unscriptural   character   of  this  feature  of   the  system   must 
therefore  be  obvious  to  all.     In  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  the 
people  chose  their  own  deacons,  but  Methodism  has  ventured 
to  improve  upon  the  primitive  plan,  and  her  preachers  exer- 
cise a  power  which  Apostles  did  not  dare  to  assume. 


Let.  XVII.  CLERICAL   USURPATIONS.  285 

Agnin,  wo  refer  the  reader  to  the  15th  chapter  of  Acts, 
for  farther  proof  of  scriptural  republicanism:  "Certain  men 
which  came  down  from  Judea  taught  the  brethren — 'Except 
ye  be  circumcised/  &c.  They  (the  brethren)  determined  that 
Paul  and  Barnabas  and  certain  other  of  them  (the  brethren) 
should  go  up  to  Jerusalem — they  were  received  of  the  church, 
and  of  the  Apostles  and  elders — and  the  Apostles  and  elders 
came  together  to  consider  of  this  matter.  Then  pleased  it 
the  Apostles  and  elders,  with  the  whole  church,  to  send  chosen 
men  of  their  own  company — the  Apostles,  elders,  and  breth- 
ren, send  greeting — it  seemed  good  unto  us  (the  Apostles, 
elders,  and  brethren),  being  assembled  with  one  accord,  to 
send  chosen  men  unto  you,"  &c.  If  these  passages  do  not 
prove  the  fact,  that  under  the  direction  of  inspired  Apostles, 
the  people  did  participate  in  the  deliberations  and  legisla- 
tive acts  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem — if  they  do  not  deter- 
mine the  Divine  right  of  private  members  of  the  church  to  a 
share  in  its  government,  it  is  difficult  to  say  what  evidence 
would  suffice.  But  suppose  these  things  had  been  transacted 
by  a  Methodist  conference,  annual  or  general.  How  would 
it  have  read?  The  reverend  traveling  preachers  (although 
the  ''brethren"  had  not  "chosen"  one  of  them  "to  go  vp"  to 
conference,)  came  together  for  to  consider  of  this  matter. 
Then  pleased  it  the  traveling  preachers  to  exclude  from  their 
conference  all  local  preachers,  to  allow  them  no  seat  nor  vote 
in  their  meeting.  And  when  there  had  been  much  disputing, 
a  certain  bishop,  surnamed  Peter,  rose  up,  and  addressed 
the  preachers.  "Then  all  the  multitude"  (of  the  preachers) 
kept  silence  and  gave  audience — and  after  he  had  held 
his  peace,  bishop  James  delivered  a  speech  to  the  "  whole  mul- 
titude" of  preachers:  Then  pleased  it  the  reverend  travel- 
ing preachers,  "with  the  whole  church"  of  traveling  preachers, 
to  send  chosen  men  to  Antioch.  And  they  wrote  letters — 
"The  traveling  preachers,  with  'the  brethren,'  who  are  also 
traveling  preachers,  send  greeting — It  seemed  good  unto  us, 


286  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.        Let.  XVII. 

the  traveling  preachers"  &c.  &c.  Now  in  this  portrait  we 
have  merely  supposed  the  Apostles  to  have  been  good  Meth- 
odists— that  they  excluded  all  laymen  and  local  preachers 
from  a  seat  and  vote  in  their  councils,  and  after  having  been 
self-appointed  to  conference,  that  they  took  the  whole  business 
of  legislation  out  of  the  hands  of  the  people.  We  have  also 
substituted  the  words  "traveling  preachers"  in  the  place  of 
"the  brethren,"  "all  the  multitude/'  "the  whole  church," 
&c.  as  they  occur  in  the  15th  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  It  would  be  manifestly  absurd  to  speak  of  "all 
the  multitude,"  "the  whole  church,"  "the  brethren,"  as 
being  present,  "giving  audience,"  and  uniting  in  the  business 
of  legislation,  in  a  Methodist  conference.  In  this  mirror, 
then,  the  candid  inquirer  may  see  at  one  view,  the  republi- 
canism of  Scripture,  and  the  aristocracy  of  Methodism.  Nor 
will  he  feel  surprise  to  find  Dr.  Bangs  in  his  "Vindication," 
express  his  fears  for  a  " ministry  under  the  control  and  at  the 
mercy  of  the  people."  p.  158.  Doubtless  Dr.  B.  thinks  it 
much  safer  to  have  the  people  under  the  control  and  at  the 
mercy  of  the  preachers  ! 

Such,  then,  in  the  language  of  another,  is  Episcopal  Meth- 
odism— an  anomaly  in  the  midst  of  our  free  institutions. 
Her  mother,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  it  is  well 
known,  admits  the  principle  of  lay  representation.  So  that 
excepting  her  grandmother  of  Rome,  she  is  the  only  church 
in  America  that  is  not  blessed  with  "  the  liberty  wherewith 
Christ  hath  made  us  free." 


Let.  XVIII.  CLERICAL   USURPATIONS.  287 


LETTER  XVIII. 

CLERICAL   USURPATIONS  —  PREACHERS    FIX  THEIR   OWN 
SALARIES,  AND  PROVIDE  FOR  THEIR  PAYMENT. 

Rev.  Sir — The  impression  is  often  made  by  the  agents  of 
your  system  that  whilst  the  ministers  of  other  denominations 
are  abundantly  paid  for  their  labors,  the  Methodist  preachers 
not  only  receive  no  pecuniary  compensation,  but  indignantly 
spurn  the  thought,  as  degrading  them  to  a  level  with  hireling 
priests.  AVhether  this  impression  is  intentionally  left  upon 
the  minds  of  the  people,  we  know  not;  we  only  state  the  fact. 
We  believe,  however,  that  a  careful  examination  will  clearly 
establish  the  truth,  that  your  preachers  have  provided  for 
themselves  more  liberally  than  the  people  have  provided  for  the 
ministry  of  any  other  branch  of  the  American  church.  In 
this  they  have  only  practiced  upon  the  principle  avowed  by 
the  founder  of  their  system.  "  I  know,"  says  Wesley 
(Works,  vol.  i.  p.  78),  "the  spiritual  laborer  is  worthy  of  his 
reward;  and  that  if  we  sow  to  our  flock  spiritual  things,  it  is 
meet  that  we  reap  of  their  carnal  things  :  I  do  not  therefore 
blame,  no,  not  in  any  degree,  a  minister's  taking  a  yearly 
salary." 

XIII.  The  Difficulties  of  Methodist  Episcopacy  — 
Preachers  fix  their  own  Salaries,  and  provide 
for  their  liberal  payment. 

The  following  items  they  have  enacted  into  laws  for  re- 
munerating the  traveling  ministry  for  their  toils  : 

I.  "The  annual  allowance  of  the  traveling  preachers  shall 
be  two  hundred  dollars,  and  their  traveling  expenses. 

II.  Each  child  of  a  traveling  preacher  shall  be  allowed 
sixteen  dollars  annually  to  the  age  of  seven  years;  and 
twenty-four  dollars  annually  from  seven  to  fourteen.  And 
those  preachers  whose  wives  are  dead,  shall  be  allowed  for 


288  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.      Let.  XVIII. 

each  child  a  sum  sufficient  to  pay  the  hoard  of  sucli  child  or 
children  for  the  above  term  of  years.  Nevertheless,  this  rule 
shall  not  apply  to  the  children  of  preachers  whose  families 
are  provided  for  by  other  means,  in  their  circuits  respectively. 

III.  The  allowance  of  superannuated,  worn-out,  and  super- 
numerary preachers,  shall  be  two  hundred  dollars  annually. 

IV.  The  annual  allowance  of  their  widows  shall  be  one 
hundred  dollars. 

V.  Their  orphans  shall  be  allowed  the  same  sums  respect- 
ively which  are  allowed  to  the  children  of  living  preachers. 
And  on  the  death  of  a  preacher,  leaving  a  child  or  children 
without  so  much  of  worldly  goods  as  should  be  necessary  to 
his,  or  her,  or  their  support,  the  annual  conference  shall  raise 
a  yearly  sum  for  the  subsistence  and  education  of  such  orphan 
child  or  children  until  he,  she  or  they  shall  be  fourteen 
years  of  age." 

Again:  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  committee  or  one 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  to  make  an  estimate  of  the  amount 
necessary  to  furnish  fuel  and  table  expenses  for  the  family  or 
families  of  preachers  stationed  with  them,  and  the  stewards 
shall  provide  by  such  means  as  they  may  devise,  to  meet  such 
expenses,  in  money  or  otherwise." 

Again  :  "  It  is  recommended  by  the  general  conference  to 
the  traveling  preachers,  to  advise  our  friends  in  general,  to 
purchase  a  lot  of  ground  in  each  circuit,  and  to  build  a 
preacher's  house  thereon,  and  to  furnish  it  with  at  least 
the  heavy  furniture."  "  The  general  conference  recommend 
to  all  the  circuits  (if  not  able  to  build  a  preacher's  house), 
to  rent  a  house  for  the  married  preacher  and  his  family,  and 
that  the  annual  conferences  do  assist  to  make  up  the  rents 
of  such  houses  as  far  as  they  can,  when  the  circuits  cannot 
do  it." 

Thus  far  the  Discipline.  We  will  take  an  average  case, 
say  a  preacher  with  wife  and  five  children,  two  above  and 
three  under  seven  years  : 


Let.  XVIII.  CLERICAL    USURPATIONS.  289 

Annual  allowance  for  himself  and  wifo,         ....     $200  00 

Two  children  above  seven,  .$24  each,        ....  4S  00 

Three  children  under  seven,  $16  each,         -         -        -        -  48  00 
Table  expenses,  or  boarding,  at  75  cents  each  per  week,  for  six 
persons,  omitting  the  youngest  child,  and  omitting  domestics, 

fuel,  Ac. 283  00 

House  rent  and  heavy  furniture,       -         -         -         .         _  55  00 

Traveling  expenses  to  conference,  Ac.          ....  30  00 


$6G4  00 

This  liberal  allowance  will,  of  course,  increase  with  the  fam- 
ily, and  should  the  preacher  become  disabled  by  accident,  or 
sickness,  or  old  age,  the  allowance  is  continued  to  him  and  his 
children,  even  though  he  should  be  laid  aside  in  the  early  part 
of  his  ministry;  so  that  for  a  few  years,  or  weeks,  or  days'  ser- 
vice, he  and  his  family  may  receive  their  allowance  for  half  a 
century.  And  when  he  goes  to  rest  from  his  labors,  he  has  the 
consolation  of  knowing  that  his  widow  and  children  will  not 
be  cast  upon  the  cold  charity  of  an  unfeeling  world,  but  will 
be  provided  with  a  very  respectable  annual  allowance.  Well 
may  we  inquire  with  Dr.  Schmucker,  "  What  denomination 
of  Christians  is  there  in  our  land,  whose  ministers  would  not 
gladly  accept  this  provision  V 

Nothing  but  the  necessity  of  defending  ourselves  against 
the  ungenerous  assaults  of  our  adversaries,  would  constrain 
us  to  enter  into  these  minute  calculations.  Since,  however, 
they  have  provoked  the  discussion,  we  esteem  it  to  be  our  duty 
to  let  the  Christian  public  know  the  whole  truth.  It  should 
be  remembered,  therefore,  that  the  foregoing  estimates  are  made 
for  a  region  of  country  where  the  ordinary  salaries  of  the 
ministers  of  other  denominations  rate  from  §400  to  $600 — 
rarely  above  the  latter  sum,  except  in  a  few  instances,  in 
large  and  expensive  villages  and  their  vicinity ;  and  often 
less  than  the  former  amount  ($400).  With  what  shadow  of 
truth  or  justice,  tnen,  are  these  men  denounced  by  the 
"  preachers,"  whose  allowance  by  their  own  Discipline,  is 
considerably  larger  ?  This  their  most  zealous  advocates  are 
25 


290  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.      Let.  XVIII. 

compelled  to  admit.  The  Discipline,  moreover,  is  the  handi- 
work of  the  preachers  exclusively.  This  sum,  therefore  ($660), 
is  the  annual  compensation  which  they  have  ordained  to  be 
due  for  their  ministerial  services.  This  is  the  sum  they  will 
receive,  if  .they  can  get  it,  and  which  they  have  passed  the 
requisite  laws  to  secure,  provided  the  people  will  submit  to 
be  taxed  to  this  amount.  What  then  becomes  of  their  volun- 
tary poverty  ?  Ought  they  not  to  blush  for  the  outcry  which 
they  have  raised  respecting  the  large  salaries  of  the  clergy 
of  other  branches  of  the  church  ?  Is  it  fair,  is  it  honest,  to 
indulge  in  harsh  reflections  and  taunting  insinuations  against 
ministers  who  do  not  receive,  in  numberless  instances,  so  large 
a  salary  as  Methodist  preachers  have  decreed  to  he  not  too 
large  a  sum  for  a  clergyman  with  a  certain  family  ? 

We  are  not  sufficiently  in  possession  of  the  facts  to  form  a 
detailed  estimate  for  our  largest  sized  towns  and  cities.  The 
following  statements,  however,  will  afford  a  clew  to  explain 
how  these  matters  are  managed  there.  In  the  trial  of  an 
action  for  libel  in  New  York,  brought  by  Azor  Hoyt  against 
Rev.  Messrs.  Waugh,  Emory,  Bangs  and  J.  Collard,  Rev. 
Dr.  Durbin  testified  as  follows  :  "  My  salary  is  twelve  hundred 
and  fifty  dollars  annually;  that  of  Mr.  Bangs,  I  think,  fif- 
teen hundred  or  upward — that  of  Mr.  Merritt,  about  twelve 
hundred — that  of  Mr.  Waugh,  sixteen  hundred — that  of  Mr. 
Mason  is,  I  think,  over  one  thousand  and  under  fifteen  hun- 
dred dollars."  Now,  whether  it  is  understood  that  besides 
this  moneyed  compensation,  these  gentlemen  receive  a  fur- 
nished house,  rent  free,  table  expenses,  &c.  according  to  the 
Discipline,  we  are  not  informed.  If  so,  the  foregoing  sums 
would  be  swelled  to  a  very  handsome  remuneration  for  their 
toils. 

Dr.  Durbin' s  statements  referred  to  a  period  more  than 
twenty  years  ago.  A  few  years  later,  a  correspondent  in  Bal- 
timore wrote  to  the  author :  "  In  regard  to  this  cityr  I  have 
no  doubt  you  might  safely  estimate  '  table  expenses/  &c.  at 


Let.  XVIII.  CLERICAL    USURPATIONS.  291 

from  seven  to  eight  hundred  dollars,  and  the  average  of  their 
house  rent  at  three  hundred." 

But  to  return  to  our  estimate  for  the  country.  If  the 
preachers,  as  we  have  shown,  have  ordained  six  hundred  dol- 
lars as  their  annual  salary,  it  is  justly  due,  or  it  is  not.  If 
not  justly  due,  then  it  is  "the  wages  of  unrighteousness;" 
but  if  it  be  justly  due  to  the  preacher,  why  are  Presbyterian 
ministers  denounced  for  receiving  generally  a  much  smaller 
sum,  particularly  as  it  is  always  the  voluntary  offering  of  the 
people  to  the  man  of  their  choice,  not  a  preacher  sent  by  the 
bishop  and  saddled  on  the  congregation,  whether  they  will  or 
not? 

In  reply  to  these  statements,  it  has  been  retorted  with 
much  warmth,  "  The  preachers  do  not  get  the  sums  allowed 
by  the  Discipline."  Very  probably  in  many  cases  it  is  so. 
We  should  think  it  strange  if  it  were  otherwise.  There  ia 
some  reason,  however,  to  believe,  as  will  be  shown  presently, 
that  the  payment  of  the  allowance  is  the  ordinary  practice, 
its  non-payment  the  exception.  But  admitting  that  the 
preachers  "  do  not  get"  what  their  rules  allow,  it  must  be 
because  the  people  will  not  submit  to  be  taxed  to  the  full  amount 
agreed  upon  by  their  spiritual  rulers.  We  have  already  cited 
the  rule  of  the  Discipline,  declaring  "  the  offender  must  be 
cut  off"  on  the  third  instance  of  "neglect  of  duties  of  any 
hind"  or  "  disobedience  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the 
church  ;"  that  is,  "  if  there  be  no  sign  of  humiliation."  Of 
course,  it  follows,  that  if  this  rule  were  put  in  force,  every 
third  instance  of  "neglect"  to  pay  the  preacher  would  be 
followed  by  excommunication,  if  there  were  no  signs  of  re- 
pentance!  And  again':  "  Remember,  a  Methodist  preacher 
is  to  mind  every  point  great  and  small  in  the  Methodist  Dis- 
cipline." If  the  preacher's  salary  is  not  paid,  what  does  it 
prove  ?  Why,  only  that  they  have  gone  a  little  too  fast  and 
too  far  in  passing  the  laws  which  impose  the  tax  upon  the 
people,  or  in  common  phrase,  "  have  reckoned  without  their 


292  DIFFICULTIES    OF   ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIX. 

host."  The  people  will  not  submit  to  their  rules,  and  the 
preachers  dare  not  enforce  them;  and  there  they  stand  re- 
corded evidence  against  their  authors  of  their  disposition  to 
take  much  more  than  they  can  get,  without  risking  the  loss  of 
many  of  their  members.  The  tax  laws  are  there  a  terror  to 
evil  doers  who  might  neglect  to  pay  the  preacher,  and  no 
doubt  thousands  are  thereby  collected  from  the  weak  and 
credulous  who  would  rather  give  their  money  than  cause 
strife,  or  run  the  hazard  of  being  excluded  from  the  church. 
In  my  next  Letter,  reference  will  be  made  to  facts,  in 
order  to  shed  further  light  upon  the  question  of  the  payment 
of  the  preachers'  salaries. 


!  LETTER  XIX. 

ARE  THE  PREACHERS'  SALARIES  PAID? 

Rev.  Sir — We  come  now  to  the  testimony  of  facts,  in  re- 
gard to  the  payment  of  the  liberal  salaries  which  the  travel- 
ing preachers  have  provided  for  themselves.  We  first  quote 
the  directions  on  pages  185,  188  of  the  "Discipline:"  "Let 
there  be  made  weekly  class  collections  in  all  our  societies  where 
it  is  practicable,"  and  "  every  preacher"  having  charge  of  a 
circuit  is  required  to  "  make  a  yearly  collection,  and  if  expe- 
dient a  quarterly  one,  in  every  congregation  where  there  is  a 
probability  the  people  will  be  'willing  to  contribute."  It  is 
admitted  there  is  sometimes  "a  surplus  in  the  hands  of  the 
stewards,  after  paying  the  allowances  of  the  preachers  in  the 
circuit."  Secondly,  we  adduce  the  following  testimony  ex- 
tracted from  the  Religious  Intelligencer  of  New  Haven, 
p.  793 :  tl  I  was  brought  up  a  Methodist,"  remarks  this  wit- 
ness, "and  my  parents  are  to  this  hour  members  of  that 
society.     I   have   been   a  preacher  in    that  denomination  a 

number  of  years.     In  the  year I  thought  it  my  duty  to 

request  a  dismission  from  that  body ;  and  as  there  was  nothing 


Let.  XIX.      ARE   PREACHERS'    SALARIES    PAID  ?  293 

against  my  religious  and  moral  character,  I  was  accordingly 
dismissed,  and  united  myself  to  a  respectable  association  of 
Congregational  ministers  in  New  England.  Soon  after  this  I 
had  a  call  to  settle  with  the  congregation  of  which  I  am  now 
pastor.  From  this  statement,  you  will  easily  conclude  that  I 
must  be  well  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of 
the  Methodists.  To  the  honor  of  the  Methodists  I  can  say,  I 
always  received  my  salary  with  great  punctuality."  (Here 
he  makes  some  calculations,  which  are  precisely  like  those 
given  above,  except  that  he  actually  received  four  dollars  per 
week  boarding  for  himself  and  wife,  whilst  we  have  stated  it 
at  seventy-five  cents  each  in  the  foregoing  calculation.)  "As 
respects  their  not  getting  what  the  Discipline  allows,"  adds 
thi.s  writer,  "it  may  be  true  in  some  few  cases;  but  without  any 
reflection  upon  the  Methodist  preachers  as  a  body,  most  of 
these  men  are  of  that  class  who  would  get  far  less  in  almost 
any  other  situation.  I  have  made  the  proposal  several  times 
to  my  society,  to  place  my  salary  on  the  plan  of  the  Method- 
ist Discipline."  (Here  he  compares  his  salary  with  what  it 
would  be  in  the  Methodist  church,  and  finds  that  for  his  fam- 
ily of  seven  persons,  his  salary  would  be  raised  twenty-eight 
dollars  and  the  house  rent.)  "That  the  respectable  Methodist 
preachers  do  get  their  salaries  (he  continues),  we  cannot 
doubt.  I  can  any  time  bring  forward  cases  in  which  Meth- 
odist preachers  have  received  the  notes  of  the  circuit  steicards 
on  interest  for  the  balance  of  their  salary  for  the  year,  when 
it  has  not  been  promptly  paid."  Such,  then,  is  the  unvar- 
nished tale  of  this  witness,  satisfactorily  proving  that  the 
statutes,  by  which  the  preachers  have  effectually  repelled  the 
charge  of  "making  no  provision  for  their  own,"  are  not  a 
"dead  letter,"  but  a  living  principle,  securing  in  the  majority 
of  cases  (if  this  witness  speak  the  truth),  ample  provision  for 
themselves  and  "  those  of  their  own  household."  The  moneyed 
allowance  for  themselves  and  wives  (independently  of  house 
rent,  table  expenses  and  other  items),  has  several  times  been 


294  DIFFICULTIES    OF   ARMINIANISM.        I**-   XTX 

enlarged,  but  never  reduced.  And  even  the  collection  of 
their  liberal  salaries,  as  Dr.  Schinucker  observes,  is  not  at- 
tended with  the  same  trouble  as  in  other  churches,  among 
other  reasons,  because  a  large  income  is  annually  derived  from 
general  funds. 

A  glance  at  some  of  these  sources  of  income  must  suffice. 
The  Chartered  Fund  was  established  in  1796,  at  which  time 
the  previously  existing  "  stock  of the  preachers'  fund,"  togeth- 
er with  the  profits  of  the  book  concern,  were  thrown  into  this 
fund,  and  the  interest  of  the  whole  applied  to  the  preachers' 
salaries.  This  fund  was  reported  the  next  year  (1797)  as 
yielding  $266£.  In  January,  1829,  it  amounted  to  $27,000, 
and  in  1843,  Dr.  Musgrave  stated  it  at  about  "  thirty  thousand 
dollars."  Porter's  Compend  of  Methodism  (1855)  admits 
that  its  object  was  "  to  relieve  the  difficulties"  of  the  preacher, 
and  that  it  "  has  afforded  partial  relief." 

The  Centenary  Fund,  Porter  tells  us,  was  established  in 
1839,  when  to  commemorate  the  hundredth  year  of  Methodism, 
"  the  amount  contributed  for  different  objects  was  estimated 
at  $600,000." 

"The  Book  Concern,"  Porter  informs  us,  originated  in 
1789.  "It  began,"  he  says,  "with  about  $600  capital,  bor- 
rowed of  the  agent."  In  less  than  twenty  years  (1808)  there 
"was  a  capital  in  the  '  Concern'  of  forty-five  thousand  dollars." 
"  In  1820  a  branch  was  established  at  Cincinnati ;  and  subse- 
quently depositories  in  Philadelphia,  Kichmond,  Charleston, 
Pittsburgh,  Nashville,  Boston,  San  Francisco,  and  other 
places,  and  a  weekly  paper  established  in  connection  with 
most  of  them." 

The  value  of  the  pecuniary  interest  invested  in  the  New  York 
establishment,  may  be  estimated  from  the  fact,  that  in  the 
fire  of  February,  1836,  "  when  the  new  buildings  and  nearly 
all  the  property  were  consumed,  the  estimated  loss  was  two 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  at  least."  The  loss,  adds 
Porter,  "  to  the  support  of  sick  and  needy  preachers  was  well 


Let.  XIX.   ARE  PREACHERS'  SALARIES  PAID  ?      295 

understood."  Accordingly,  "about  390,000  were  realized  in 
donations,  which  with  some  §25,000  insurance,  enabled  the 
agents  to  start  anew  with  encouraging  prospects."  "  The 
capital  stock,"  he  adds,  "  has  been  gradually  increasing." 
u  In  the  New  York  Concern,  it  is  estimated  at  $626,406 — and 
at  Cincinnati  $190,542 — or  together,  about  eight  hundred 
and  seventeen  thousand  dollars."  Porter  is  himself  a  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  preacher,  and  these  estimates  were  published 
in  1855.  The  last  five  years  have  no  doubt  greatly  swelled 
the  sum  total.  Dr.  Musgrave  in  1842,  published  a  statement 
which  he  derived  "  from  the  office  at  New  York,"  and  which 
was  signed  by  Lane  and  Sanford,  the  agents.  "  The  net 
profits  of  the  New  York  Concern  for  the  year,"  are  there 
stated  at  §39,738.10 — "or  nearly  forty  thousand  dollars" — 
although  they  had  lost  in  exchange  upward  of  §10,000 
during  the  twelve  months. 

From  these  facts,  some  estimate  may  be  formed  of  the  im- 
mense and  constantly  increasing  capital  connected  with  the 
New  York  and  Cincinnati  Book  Concerns  and  the  other  book 
depositories,  with  their  weekly  papers ;  and  on  p.  36  of  the 
"  Discipline,"  the  General  Conference  is  expressly  forbidden 
"  to  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern  and  the 
Charter  Fund  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the 
traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated  and  worn-out  preach- 
ers, their  wives,  widows  and  children."  Besides,  every 
preacher  is  officially  a  book  agent,  "  who  is  to  sec  that  his 
circuit  be  duly  supplied  with  books."  Thus  they  carry  on 
an  immense  book  trade  over  the  wide  extent  of  our  country, 
the  profits  of  which  they  apply  to  their  own  salary  and  the 
support  of  their  widows  and  orphans.  With  near  five  thou- 
sand preachers,  agents  in  this  business,  and  "seven  or  eight 
hundred  thousand"  members,  who  are  cautioned  "not  to  pur- 
chase any  books  which  we  publish,  of  any  other  persons  than 
the  aforesaid  D.  Hitt  and  T.  Ware,  and  the  Methodist  minis- 
ters, or  such  jiersons  as  sell  them  by  their  consent"  (Portrait  of 


296  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.         Let.  XIX. 

Methodism),  the  annual  profits  must  be  enormous  in  a  con- 
cern of  such  unparalleled  extent.*  And  all  the  proceeds  are 
appropriated  by  statute,  after  retaining  the  necessary  capital 
to  carry  on  the  business,  to  no  other  purpose  than  the  payment 
of  the  preachers1  allowance.  In  what  other  denomination  is 
there  a  security  like  this  for  ample  compensation  to  their 
ministers  for  their  self-denying  toils?  And  in  the  light  of 
these  facts,  how  must  we  regard  the  outcry  of  Methodists 
against  the  clergy  of  other  sects  in  regard  to  salary,  when  in 
fact  no  branch  of  the  church  on  earth  has  a  ministry  placed 
on  such  high  and  independent  footing  in  this  respect  as  their 
own.  Not  only  do  they  require  their  members,  even  in  strait- 
ened circumstances,  to  contribute  liberally  (it  is  well  known 
that  house  maids  pay  four  dollars  a  year),  but  by  a  mighty 
machinery,  reaching  its  hundred  hands  to  every  nook  and 
corner  of  the  land,  they  manage  an  unexampled  traffic,  which 
pours  into  their  treasury  its  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 
annually.  But  perhaps  the  worst  feature  of  the  system  is  the 
agency  by  which  the  people  who  pay  this  money  are  excluded 
from  all  part  or  lot  in  its  distribution.  Preachers  pass  the 
revenue  laws  and  preachers  meet  to  divide  the  spoil;  in  other 
words,  fix  the  amount  of  their  own  salary,  and  allow  them- 
selves the  sums  they  in  their  wisdom  may  consider  lawfully 
due  for  their  important  services. 

In  further  proof  of  these  statements,  we  refer  to  the  "Dis- 
cipline." The  conference  composed  exclusively  of  preachers, 
fix  the  amount  of  salary,  and  the  preachers  take  up  the 
collections,  which  are  ordered  "to  be  brought  or  sent  to  the 
annual  conference"  to  be  disposed  of  exclusively  by  preach- 
ers !  It  is  true  the  moneys  are  in  the  first  instance  "  to  be 
lodged  with  the  stewards,"  who  are  laymen,  and  this  is  an 
apparent  exception  to  the  above  remarks;  but  on  examination 

*  Seo  Dr.  Schruucker's  letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Young.  In  1855,  Porter  states 
the  traveling  preachers  at  4,814,  and  the  supernumeraries  669.  The  total 
of  members  he  sets  down  at  783,000. 


Let.  XIX.   ARE  PREACHERS'  SALARIES  TAID  ?       297 

it  will  be  found  to  be  only  apparent,  not  real.  Wbo  nomi- 
nate the  stewards?  The  preachers  cxelusivcly.  Who  elect 
them  ?  The  quarterly  conference.  Who  compose  this  con- 
ference ?  Preachers,  who  arc  self-appointed;  "extorters" 
appointed  exclusively  by  the  preachers;  "leaders,"  also  ap- 
pointed only  by  the  preachers;  and  "stewards"  nominated 
by  the  preachers.  This  is  the  body  which  elects  the  stew- 
ard, after  he  is  nominated  by  the  preacher !  This  is  one 
feature  of  Dr.  Bangs'  "elective  system!"  We  respectfully 
submit  that  it  would  be  quite  as  republican  and  fair,  and  cer- 
tainly much  more  open  and  candid,  for  the  preacher  to  take 
the  appointment  of  the  steward  directly  into  his  own  hands, 
or  himself  perform  the  duties  of  treasurer  of  the  circuit. 
These  stewards,  be  it  also  remembered,  are  bound  to  pay  the 
preachers  just  the  sums  they  have  awarded  to  themselves  for 
quarterage;  and  the  surplus,  if  any,  goes  into  the  hands  of 
the  preachers  in  conference  assembled ;  and  one  of  the 
"  duties"  of  the  steward  (on  the  third  "  neglect"  of  which 
he  may  be  excommunicated),  is  "to  be  subject  to  the  bishops, 
the  presiding  elder,  and  the  elder,  deacon,  and  traveling 
preachers  of  the  circuit."  So  that  he  is  not  only  the  crea- 
ture of  their  will,  but  completely  under  their  rod. 

It  is  replied,  however,  with  great  indignation,  "  that  not  a 
cent  can  be  had  for  table  exp>enses  and  house  rent  without  the 
consent  and  authority  of  a  lay  committee."  But  not  to 
insist  upon  the  fact  that  the  conference  (of  preachers)  can 
dispense  with  this  committee  whenever  it  pleases  them — we 
inquire,  Who  are  the  members  of  this  lay  committee  ?  The 
stewards !  It  is  "  a  committee  of  stewards  •"  and,  as  we 
have  just  shown,  might  with  about  the  same  propriety  be  "a 
committee  of  preachers !" 

Again  :  it  is  argued  that  the  preacher's  salary  cannot  be 
rated  at  six  hundred  dollars,  because  "  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
how  much  such  a  committee,  in  any  given  case,  will  allow  for 
house  rent  and  table  expenses,"  and  it  ia  even  suggested  that 


298  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNIANISM.        Let.  XIX. 

they  may  refuse  to  allow  any  thing.  But  what  saith  the 
Discipline  ?  "  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  committee  to 
make  an  estimate  of  the  amount  necessary  to  furnish  fuel 
and  table  expenses.  " — "And  the  stewards  shall  provide,  by 
such  means  as  they  may  devise,  to  meet  such  expenses,  in 
money  or  otherwise."  But  the  rule  before  referred  to  expressly 
declares,  that  "in  case  of  neglect  of  DUTIES  of  any  kind,"  or 
"  disobedience  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  church,"  the 
guilty  person  is,  on  the  third  offense,  to  be  "  cut  off,"  whether 
he  be  steward  or  member  of  committee.  They  are  bound, 
on  pain  of  excommunication,  to  make  an  estimate  of  "the 
amount  necessary,"  not  any  amount  they  may  please  to  allow 
the  preacher,  but  that  precise  amount  which,  according  to 
ordinary  rates  of  expenditure,  is  "  necessary  "  for  fuel  and 
table  expenses,  and  "provide  to  meet  such  expenses  in  money 
or  otherwise."  In  view  of  such  facts,  it  is  folly  to  talk  of  this 
committee  having  "power  to  allow  sixty  cents  instead  of  six 
hundred  dollars  !  I"  And  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  it 
is  declared  to  be  "  the  duty  of  the  presiding  elders  and 
preachers  to  use  their  influence  to  carry  the  rules  respecting 
building  and  renting  houses  for  the  preachers  into  effect." 
"  And  it  is  recommended  to  the  annual  conference  to  make  a 
special  inquiry  of  their  members  respecting  this  part  of  their 
duty."  The  preachers  are  to  "  use  their  influence  !"  What 
kind  or  degree  of  influence  the  preachers  and  the  conference 
are  empowered  to  exert  over  the  stewards,  when  it  is  known 
that  if  they  "  neglect  their  duty  "  in  making  up  the  preachers' 
salaries,  and  securing  them  comfortable,  well-furnished  houses, 
on  the  third  offense  "  they  must  be  cut  off"  except  they  re- 
pent and  mend  their  ways,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  ! ! 

In  speaking  of  the  position  and  prospects  of  the  traveling 
clergy,  it  is  common  to  represent  them  as  "abandoning  almost 
every  earthly  interest  in  entering  upon  an  itinerant  career, 
and  submitting  to  labors  and  trials  that  few  have  nerve 
enough  to  endure."*  Very  different,  however,  is  the  judg- 
*  Porter's  Compendium,  p.  377. 


Let.  XIX.      ARE    PREACIIERS     SALARIES   PAID  ?  299 

ment  of  the  Baltimore  Reformers,  or  Methodist  Protestants. 
a  We  are  of  the  opinion,"  they  say,  "  that  a  system  which  at 
once  elevates  men  from  the  various  departments  of  humble 
life,  and  from  a  state  of  dependence  to  sovereign  rule ;  from 
comparative  ignorance  to  the  means  of  improvement  and 
knowledge,  so  far  from  being  a  system  of  sacrifice  and  self- 
denial,  is  one  of  great  enjoyment,  and  it  sometimes  proves  a 
system  of  emolument."  This  is  the  verdict  of  men  who  had 
themselves  been  Episcopal  Methodists.  As  preachers  they 
had  tasted  of  the  cup  of  "  labors  and  trials  that  few  have  nerve 
to  endure  !" 

Such  then  is  the  poverty  of  the  traveling  ministry  of 
Methodism.  Six  or  seven  hundred  dollars  secured  in  com- 
pensation of  labors,  for  the  right  performance  of  which  there 
has  not  been  any  preparatory  expenditure  worthy  of  notice,  is 
no  mean  provision  for  the  good  things  of  this  life.  In  most 
other  denominations,  the  intended  minister  is  required  to  pass 
through  a  course  of  training,  from  seven  to  twelve  years  in 
duration,  in  which  he  must  expend  a  small  estate,  before  he 
can  enter  upon  the  duties  of  his  profession  ;  and  if,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  he  is  disabled  by  disease  or  accident  after 
the  few  first  years  or  weeks  of  his  ministry,  he  must  resign 
his  charge,  and  of  course  his  means  of  subsistence,  to  some 
more  favored  occupant.  Not  so  the  preacher  of  Methodism. 
After  the  expiration  of  the  few  first  years  or  weeks  of  his 
ministry,  even  though  reduced  by  the  visitation  of  Heaven 
to  a  state  of  utter  helplessness,  he  is  entitled  to  a  clear  income 
for  himself  and  wife  of  two  hundred  dollars,  or  the  interest 
of  three  thousand  three  hundred  and  thirty-three  dollars ;  and 
his  children  are  also  provided  for.  It  may  be  questioned 
whether  any  man,  minister  or  layman,  would  be  considered 
far  from  the  pathway  of  wealth,  who,  in  four  years,  or  as  it 
may  be,  in  four  days,  with  scarce  any  previous  expenditure, 
and  with  no  risk  of  pecuniary  loss,  could  realize  an  annual 
income  of  equal  magnitude.     And  should  the  preacher  survive 


300  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.        Let:  XIX: 

for  fifty  years  in  a  state  of  incapacity,  and  his  wife  be  also 
spared,  they  will  be  entitled  to  draw  the  sum  of  ten  thousand 
dollars,  besides  the  support  of  their  children. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  obvious  that  the  Methodist  clerical 
orders  possess  very  considerable  financial  skill.  This  we 
think  has  been  fully  proved  in  the  previous  discussion,  and 
may  be  made  still  more  plain  by  one  or  two  additional  facts. 
"It  is  contrary  to  the  Methodist  economy  to  build  houses  with 
pews  to  sell  or  rent."  But,  as  has  been  well  remarked  by 
my  correspondent  in  Baltimore,  "  more  money  is  actually 
paid  by  many  families  in  their  weekly  tax  at  class  meeting 
than  they  would  be  required  to  pay  for  a  pew  in  one  of  our 
churches.  Multitudes  are  deceived  by  the  smallness  of  the 
periodical  sum,  and  have  no  idea  of  the  amount  in  the  course 
of  the  year."*  Besides,  there  is  another  very  important 
reason  why  they  are  opposed  to  the  pew  system.  If  the  people 
owned  the  pews  they  could  control  the  house,  which  would  be 
an  utter  abomination  in  the  eyes  of  the  preachers  !  The  con- 
ference would  no  longer  have  the  power  to  use  the  property 
for  their  own  purposes,  contrary  to  the  unanimous  wish  of 
the  contributors  and  real  owners.  Therefore  pews  would  be 
a  dangerous  innovation  ! 

In  connection  with  these  statements,  let  the  reader  recur 
to  the  evidence  adduced  in  a  foregoing  Letter,  that  the  owner- 
ship of  every  Methodist  church  and  parsonage  is  vested  in 
the  conference.  The  authorized  deed  makes  no  mention  of 
the  particular  congregation  as  a  party  in  the  transaction,  but 
only  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church  in  the  United  States; 

*  The  following  facts  came  "within  my  own  knowledge.  A  person  who 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  worshiping  with  Presbyterians,  united  with  the 
Methodists,  together  with  his  family.  He  very  candidly  acknowledged  that 
whereas  he  used  to  pay  six  or  seven  dollars  annual  pew  rent,  he  was  taxed 
by  the  Methodist  preachers  at  the  rate  of  a  dollar  per  head  per  quarter  for 
himself  and  family  ;  amounting  during  the  year  to  upward  of  twenty  dollars. 
And  he  very  honestly  declared,  the  '"  preachers  "  should  hold  their  peace  on 
that  topic. 


Let.  XX.  ARTICLES   AND   DISCIPLINE.  301 

and  the  principle  has  been  actually  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  case  of  an  appeal,  by  a  minority 
of  trustees  or  agents  of  the  conference,  from  the  verdict  of 
a  jury  previously  given  in  favor  of  the  majority  both  of  the 
congregation  and  of  the  trustees,  who  had  joined  the  Protest- 
ant Methodists.  The  Supreme  Court,  therefore,  has  settled 
the  principle  that  a  minority,  however  small,  of  the  faithful 
servants  of  the  conference,  may,  on  the  ground  of  the  on\y 
authorized  form  of  deed,  dispossess  a  majority,  however  large, 
of  their  property  in  a  church  or  parsonage.  Submission  to 
the  sovereign  authority  of  a  conference  of  preachers  is  the 
only  legal  title  to  funds  thus  vested.  "  It  is  therefore  unde- 
niable, that  if  every  member  and  every  trustee  of  a  church 
thus  deeded,  were  to  regard  any  future  measures  of  the 
conference  as  tyrannical,  and  should  desire  to  withdraw  and 
introduce  other  preachers,  the  conference  could  turn  the  key 
on  them,  and  they  would  be  compelled  to  submit."  In  propor- 
tion, therefore,  as  the  members  of  the  church  secede,  and 
vacate  the  houses  and  lands  which  they  have  occupied,  will 
an  immense  and  accumulating  revenue  of  this  sort  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  preachers  composing  the  conference. 
The  Protestant  Methodists  may  get  the  men,  but  the  Epis- 
copal Methodists  hold  fast  the  money. 


LETTER  XX. 

ARTICLES  AND  DISCIPLINE— THEIR  CURIOUS  ORIGIN  AND 
PROMINENT  FEATURES  — WESLEY'S  AURICULAR  CONFES- 
SION, Ac. 

Rev.  Sir — We  have  had  occasion  in  previous  Letters  to 
mention  repeatedly  the  "Book  of  Discipline"  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  church,  for  the  purpose  of  directing  attention 
to  some  of  its  singular  statements.     We  are  not  done  with 
26 


302  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMLNTANISM.  Let.  XX. 

the  subject;  but  as  it  is  one  of  considerable  interest,  we  pro- 
pose to  confer  upon  it  the  distinction  of  a  separate  investiga- 
tion. This  seems  the  more  proper,  as  it  is  but  repaying  a 
debt  of  long  standing,  and  due  to  Methodism  for  the  notice 
she  has  been  pleased  to  bestow  upon  the  Presbyterian  Con- 
fession of  Faith. 

XIV.   Review   op  the  Articles  and  Book  of  Disci- 
pline. 

1.  The  origin  of  the  work.  It  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  the  Liturgy  and  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  a 
mutilated  condition.  The  original  was  formed,  as  Dr.  Miller 
tells  us,  on  the  basis  of  five  Romish  missals,  or  prayer  books, 
which  had  been  in  use  in  the  same  number  of  popish  bish- 
oprics. This  liturgy  at  first  contained  a  number  of  things 
grossly  popish ;  and  even  after  undergoing  a  "  considerable 
purgation,"  as  Dr.  M.  has  it,  by  Calvin  and  others,  still  re- 
tained a  "  number  of  articles,  adopted  from  the  missals  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  which  exceedingly  grieved  the  more 
pious  and  evangelical  part  of  the  church,  but  which  the  Queen 
(Elizabeth)  and  her  clergy  refused  to  exclude."*  These  facts 
will  fully  account  for  the  savor  of  popery  which,  in  previous 
Letters,  we  detected  in  the  form  of  administering  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  in  some  other  particulars. 

The  book,  in  its  original  form,  was  entirely  too  Calvinistic 
for  Mr.  Wesley;  hence  he  thought  proper  to  expurgate  four' 
teen  of  its  doctrinal  articles.  Among  those  rejected  are  the 
fifteenth,  which  asserts  "that  Christ  alone  was  without  sin;" 
and  the  eighteenth,  which  condemns  the  assertion  that  "  every 
man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect  which  he  professeth," 
and  which  further  affirms  "  that  holy  Scripture  doth  set  forth 
only  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  whereby  men  must  be  saved." 
These  erasures  are  very  suggestive. 

*  Calvin,  in  one  of  his  letters,  says  it  contained  many  "tolerabiles 
ineptias,"  i.  e.  "  tolerable  fooleries ;"  tolerable,  he  means,  for  children ! 


Let.  XX.  ARTICLES   AND   DISCIPLINE.  303 

2.  Sympathy  with  fundamental  errors.  After  what  lias 
been  said,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  to  find  Mr.  Wesley 
shaking  hands  with  the  Papists  in  the  following  cordial  style  : 
"  Can  nothing  be  done,  even  allowing  us  on  both  sides  to  re- 
tain our  own  opinions,  for  the  softening  our  hearts  toward 
each  other."  "  My  dear  friend,  consider  I  am  not  persuad- 
ing you  to  leave  or  change  your  religion,"  &c.  "We  ought, 
without  this  endless  jangling  about  opinions,  to  provoke  one 
another  to  love  and  to  good  works.  Let  the  points  wherein 
we  differ  stand  aside.  Here  are  enough  wherein  we  agree. 
0  brethren,  let  us  not  still  fall  out  by  the  way.1"  (Letter  to  a 
Roman  Catholic.) 

We  have  elsewhere  quoted  the  admission  of  their  greatest 
historian,  Dr.  Stevens,  viz.  that  their  "  Articles"  contain 
nothing  which  directly  condemns  "  either  Calvinism  or  Uni- 
versalism" — the  former  of  which  they  seem  to  regard  as  the 
"  hcrrsy  of  all  heresies  !"  In  regard  to  the  Unitarians,  they 
are  also  very  liberal.  Thus,  in  vol.  x.  p.  354,  of  their 
"Ladies'  Repository,"  Rev.  B.  F.  Teft,  D.  D.  the  editor, 
holds  the  following  language  in  regard  to  the  late  Dr.  Chan- 
ning,  the  great  champion  of  Socinianism  :  "  Some  will  not 
allow  Channing  to  have  been  a  Christian,  because  he  was  a 
Unitarian  preacher.  Such  a  man,  however,  can  well  dispense 
with  the  good  opinion  of  such  contemptible  bigots,  to  what- 
ever fellowship  they  belong,  when  he  has  been  followed  to 
heaven's  gate  with  the  admiration  of  two  hemispheres.  I  do 
sincerely  wish,  both  for  these  critics  and  myself,  as  good  a 
seat  in  paradise  as  I  believe  is  now  occupied  by  that  best  of 
all  good  and  great  men  ever  raised  up  by  Massachusetts." 

This  is  the  sort  of  religious  instruction  which  the  oracles 
of  Methodism  prepare  for  the  wives  and  children  of  the 
thousands  of  families  which  acknowledge  them  as  spiritual 
teachers. 

A  curious  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  Methodism 
uses  fanaticism  and  falsehood,  is  found  in  Millcrism.     Thus 


304  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XX. 

Porter,  whose  "  Compend"  is  highly  lauded  by  bishops  and 
others,  speaks  of  "  the  general  revival  from  the  year  1840  to 
1844,"  as  follows:  "The  doctrine  of  Christ's  second  coming 
had  considerable  effect."  "  Many  feared  it."  "  The  mistake 
had  no  other  influence  in  this  regard,  than  to  prompt  them  to 
seek  religion  then."  He  admits  that  Millerism  afterward 
"  became  identified  with  so  many  other  heresies,  it  poisoned 
all  who  came  under  its  influence,  and  interposed  one  of  the 
greatest  obstacles  to  religion,"  &c.  "  Notwithstanding,"  he 
adds,  "  there  was  much  wheat  gathered."  For  example,  he 
tells  us  "  that  in  1843  the  net  increase  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  church  was  154,634,  and  in  1844  it  was  102,831." 
Yet  he  admits  that  in  three  years  (1844-1847)  they  "  suffered 
a  net  decrease  of  more  than  fifty  thousand  members."  * 
Such  is  the  testimony  of  Porter,  a  "prophet  of  their  own." 
Still  he  thinks  the  tl  proportion  that  fell  away  was  not  greater 
than  is  usual,"  and  that  he  can  account  "  for  the  appalling 
decrease  without  disparaging  the  character  of  the  work  in  the 
least  I" 

3.  The  Methodist  "  Articles  and  Discipline  "  came  down, 
as  we  have  shown,  in  regular  "  succession  "  from  the  English 
"Articles  and  Liturgy  of  the  Established  Church."  The  fact 
that  the  original  was  submitted  to  Calvin  and  other  divines 
of  the  Continent,  and  thus  "purged  of  sundry  of  its  popish 
"fooleries,"  may  perhaps  also  account,  in  part,  for  the  strong 
Calvinism  of  many  of  its  doctrinal  statements,  and  which 
contradict  and  overthrow  its  Arminianism. 

4.  Statement,  of  the  origin  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church 

*  Rev.  Parsons  Cooke  tells  of  a  Rev.  G.  Fox,  a  presiding  elder,  who 
"  said  he  had  made  Miller's  theory  a  subject  of  prayer  and  study ;  and  that 
in  answer  to  prayer  he  had  received  as  clear  a  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  favor 
of  that  theory,  as  he  had  of  his  own  justification  !  He  traveled  through 
his  district,  having  access  to  all  Methodist  pulpits,  preaching  everywhere 
that  the  end  of  the  world  was  coming  in  1843 ;  and  he  employed  his  pen 
with  great  industry,  and  his  writings  were  abundantly  published  in  the 
Methodist  periodicals." 


Let.  XX.  ARTICLES   AND   DISCIPLINE.  305 

in  America.  We  are  told  on  page  14  of  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, that  ''  Mr.  Wesley,  preferring  the  Episcopal  mode  of 
church  government,  solemnly  set  apart,  by  the  imposition  of 
his  hands  and  prayer,  Thomas  Coke  to  the  episcopal  office ; 
and  having  delivered  to  him  letters  of  episcopal  orders,  com- 
missioned and  directed  him  to  set  apart  Francis  Asbury  to 
the  same  episcopal  office."  Now  besides  the  intrinsic  absurd- 
ity already  pointed  out,  of  a  priest  ordaining  a  bishop,  and 
the  exceeding  doubtfulness  of  the  matter  of  fact,  that  Wesley, 
who  declared  he  would  rather  be  called  "  fool,  knave,  villain," 
than  bishop,  should  designate  another  to  bear  the  office  and 
title  he  so  much  abhorred  j  besides  all  this,  observe  with 
what  authority  the  doctors  of  Methodism  speak  when  writing 
for  the  special  use  and  benefit  of  the  sect.  Mark  their 
language — "episcopal  mode  of  church  government" — "epis- 
copal office" — "letters  of  episcopal  orders"  —  "episcopal 
ordination,"  &c.  But  with  what  commendable  modesty 
does  Dr.  Bangs  relate  the  same  story  in  the  Appendix  to 
Buck's  Theological  Dictionary  ?  How  do  these  proud  pre- 
tensions dwindle,  when  about  to  be  laid  more  fairly  before 
the  public  ?  The  Doctor  tells  us,  "  that  being  assisted  by 
other  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  prayer  and 
imposition  of  hands,  he  (Wesley)  set  apart  Thomas  Coke,  a 
presbyter  of  said  church,  as  a  superintendent  of  the  Methodist 
societies  in  America"  (not  a  word  about  his  being  made  a 
bishop,  or  receiving  the;  episcopal  office).  Again  :  "  Mr.  As- 
bury being  first  elected  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  the 
preachers,  was  ordained  by  Dr.  Coke,  first  to  the  office  of 
deacon,  then  elder,  and  then  superintendent  or  bishop."  In 
the  Book  of  Discijdine,  the  statement  says  nothing  about 
"superintendent ;"  it  is  nothing  but  episcopal  mode  of  church 
government,  episcopal  office,  episcopal  orders,  episcopal 
ordination.  But  here  in  the  Appendix  to  Buck,  it  is  all 
superintendent,  and  the  poor  bishop  comes  limping  in  the 
rear,  in  the  shape  of  an  alias,  just  as  though  he  were  a  pcr- 
26* 


306  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XX. 

sonage  of  almost  no  importance.  The  very  term  from  which 
the  church  derives  the  name  "  episcopal/'  is  introduced  so 
modestly  that  it  might  he  supposed  a  thing  of  almost  no 
importance,  and  not  a  word  is  uttered  of  those  high-sounding 
titles  enumerated  above. 

If,  moreover,  in  the  Methodist  system,  the  terms  bishop 
and  superintendent  be  synonymous,  and  both  imply  merely 
that  their  possessor  is  an  elder,  who  on  account  of  age  or 
talents  has  received  from  man  a  more  extensive  superintend- 
ence of  ecclesiastical  affairs  than  ordinarily  belongs  to  the 
eldership,  why  all  this  pompous  talk  of  "  episcopal  ordina- 
tion," "  episcopal  office,"  "  letters  of  episcopal  orders,"  &c? 
Why  this  puerile  affectation  of  high-sounding  titles  —  this 
ludicrous  mimicry  of  the  English  hierarchy  ?  How  would  it 
be  more  absurd  to  speak  of  Presbyterian  episcopacy,  since 
every  pastor  superintends  a  portion  of  the  church  of  Christ  ? 
And  especially,  is  there  not  something  profane  in  the 
repetition  of  the  solemn  Divine  rite  of  ordination  (the  New 
Testament  knows  nothing  about  "  consecration  to  the  minis- 
try,"), whenever  an  elder  is  appointed  to  a  larger  sphere  of 
superintendence  than  formerly  he  occupied  ?  With  about  as 
much  propriety  might  every  Presbyterian  minister  be  re-or- 
dained, whenever  he  is  removed  from  a  narrow  to  an  extensive 
circuit  of  influence.  Whether  therefore  we  consider  the 
Methodist  bishop  as  holding  an  office  of  Divine  origin,  essen- 
tially distinct  from  and  superior  to  that  of  elder — or  regard 
these  offices  as  identical,  with  only  enlarged  powers  received 
of  men  on  the  part  of  the  bishop,  it  is  obvious  that  the  whole 
subject  is  involved  in  a  labyrinth  of  inconsistencies. 

5.  Methodist  liberality.  On  page  27  we  have  a  rule  for- 
bidding "  the  doing  ordinary  work,  buying  or  selling  on  the 
Sabbath,"  but  no  prohibition  of  amusements  on  that  day. 
This  indeed  might  be  regarded  merely  as  an  oversight,  were 
it  not  that  we  have  line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon  precept, 
in  regard  to  other  matters  of  much  less  importance. 


Let.  XX.  ARTICLES   AND    DISCIPLINE.  307 

On  page  27  we  find  the  following :  "  It  is  expected  of  all 
who  continue  in  these  societies,  that  they  should  evidence 
their  desire  of  salvation."  Very  well.  But  how  are  they  to 
evidence  this  desire  ?  Among  other  things,  the  fourth  para- 
graph from  the  above  reads  as  follows :  "  By  doing  good, 
especially  to  them  that  are  of  the  household  of  faith,  or 
groaning  to  be  so ;  employing  them  preferably  to  others,  buying 
one  of  another,  helping  each  other  in  business" — and  this,  be 
it  remembered,  is  one  of  those  "general  rules"  which,  on  the 
next  page,  are  said  "to  be  all  taught  of  God,"  even  in  his 
written  word ;  and  "  which  his  Sjiirit  writes  on  truly  wakened 
hearts."  "If  there  be  any  among  us,"  adds  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  "  who  habitually  break  any  of  them,  we  will  ad- 
monish him  of  the  error  of  his  ways,  we  will  bear  with  him 
for  a  season.  But  then  if  he  repent  not,  he  hath  no  more 
place  among  us.  We  have  delivered  our  own  souls!"  In 
other  words,  if  any  Methodist  shall  employ,  habitually,  any 
person  not  "  of  the  household  of  faith,  or  groaning  to  be  so," 
or  shall  habitually  buy  of  such  a  person  preferably  to  a 
brother  Methodist ;  if  he  repent  not,  he  is  turned  out — that 
the  conscientious  preachers  may  "  deliver  their  otvn  souls  !" 

In  "  some  directions  "  given  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  the  "  Band 
Societies,"  in  1744,  the  members  are  required  to  "attend 
constantly  on  all  the  ordinances  of  God  ;"  and  the  fourth 
subdivision  under  this  head,  is — "  to  observe  as  days  of  fast- 
ing or  abstinence,  all,  Fridays  in  the  year."  To  fast  every 
Friday  one  of  the  ordinances  of  God  !  Their  good  old  grand- 
mother of  Rome  has  an  "  ordinance  "  requiring  all  genuine 
sons  of  the  church  to  eat  no  meat  on  Friday;  but  where  to 
open  my  Bible  to  find  such  an  ordinance,  is  an  entire  mys- 
tery. The  blessed  Redeemer  enjoined  fasting,  but  specified  no 
particular  time  for  the  discharge  of  the  duty  ;  but  Methodism 
would  be  wiser,  and  specifies  one  day  in  each  week  ! 

6.  Practice  against  theory.  On  page  113  it  is  said,  '•  \o 
person  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  among  us,  who 


308  DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XX. 

is  guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  we  would  exclude  a  mem- 
ber of  our  church."  But  from  page  65  we  learn  that  one  of 
the  grounds  of  excluding  members  of  the  Methodist  church, 
is,  "removing  from  one  circuit  to  another  without  a  note 
of  recommendation  from  the  preacher."  But  the  case  is 
materially  altered  when  persons  are  enticed  away  from  other 
churches,  without  any  certificate  or  note  of  recommendation. 
They  are  freely  and  with  open  arms  admitted,  and  that  too 
in  many  instances  where  they  would  be  denied,  even  if  they 
requested  a  note  of  recommendation.  Indeed,  the  usage  of 
Methodism  in  this  particular  is  subversive  of  every  thing 
like  order  and  discipline  in  the  Christian  church. 

7.  Reverently  obey  the  bishops.  "  Will  you  reverently 
obey  your  chief  ministers?"  is  a  question  put  at  the  ordina- 
tion of  elders,  and  another  of  the  same  import  at  the 
ordination  of  deacons.  There  is  a  considerable  improvement 
practiced  at  Rome.  There  they  kneel  and  reverently  kiss 
the  toe  of  his  holiness  !  See  this  identical  form  of  expression 
in  the  Bull  of  Pope  Innocent  VIII.  for  exterminating  the 
Waldenses — "  Reverently  to  obey  the  apostolical  mandates," 
&c.  viz.  the  bloody  edicts  of  his  antichristian  majesty  ! 

But  perhaps  the  most  curious  illustration  of  the  reverence 
and  obedience  exacted  of  the  lower  orders  of  the  Methodist 
ministry,  is  found  on  pages  57,  58.  In  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, "  What  is  the  duty  of  a  preacher  ?"  we  have  twelve 
specifications,  and  among  others,  "Be  diligent" — "Let  your 
motto  be,  Holiness  to  the  Lord" — "Be  ashamed  of  nothing 
but  sin" — "You  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  save  souls;  there- 
fore spend  and  be  spent  in  this  work" — "Save  as  many  as 
you  can" — "  It  is  your  duty  to  employ  your  time  in  the 
manner  in  which  we  direct ;  in  preaching  and  visiting  from 
house  to  house  ;  in  reading,  meditation  and  prayer."  When 
we  had  read  thus  far,  we  almost  involuntarily  exclaimed, 
admirable  !  What  could  be  moi"e  scriptural  and  excellent ! 
But  the  very  next  sentence  was  a  dead  fly  in  the  ointment  — 


Let.  XX.  ARTICLES   AND   DISCIPLINE.  309 

"Above  all,  if  you  labor  with  us  in  the  Lord's  vineyard,  it 
is  needful  you  should  do  that  part  of  the  work  which  we 
advise,  at  those  times  and '  ]jlaces  which  WE  judge  most  for  his 
glory."  Above  all!  Above  preaching,  and  visiting,  and 
reading,  and  meditation,  and  prayer !  Above  spending  and 
being  spent  for  Christ,  and  holiness,  and  the  salvation  of 
souls  !  Above  all  these,  "  reverently  obey  your  chief  minis- 
ters." Truly,  it  would  seem  that  in  the  Methodist  catalogue 
of  ministerial  virtues,  to  obey  is  the  highest  attainment  of 
Christian  perfection — the  pearl  of  great  price — the  summum 
bonum — the  one  thing  needful — not  only  "  better  than  sacri- 
fice," but  better  than  holiness  and  salvation  !  Rebellion  is  as 
the  sin  of  witchcraft,  and  stubbornness  is  as  iniquity  and  idol- 
atry !  In  the  light  of  these  facts  we  may  readily  credit  the 
testimony  of  one  who  had  himself  been  a  Methodist,  "  that 
nearly  all  of  the  inferior  clergy  are  kept  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
bondage,  so  that,  on  many  occasions,  they  dare  not  speak  or  act 
as  the  Scriptures  prescribe  and  their  consciences  dictate,  lest  they 
should  offend  the  men  in  power,  and  be  chastised  by  a  remove 
to  a  disadvantageous  circuit,  by  a  breaking  down  in  worldly 
business,  or  by  excommunication."  An  excellent  school, 
doubtless,  in  which  the  refractory  may  "  learn  obedience  by 
the  things  they  suffer."  So  also  Mr.  M'Caine,  a  Protestant 
Methodist,  who  had  been  long  one  of  their  preachers,  says : 
u  In  upward  of  fifty  years,  we  have  known  but  one  traveling 
preacher  expelled  for  false  doctrine,  and  but  few  for  immoral- 
ity. But  we  have  heard  of  very  many  who  were  expelled/or 
oj^posing  the  bishop>." 

8.  Wesley' s  Auricular  Confession.  Although  omitted  in  the 
latest  edition  of  "the  Discipline"  (1856),  the  following  rules 
for  "Band  Societies"  as  organized  by  Mr.  Wesley,  were  for- 
merly a  part  of  that  book.  "  A  band  consists  of  two,  three 
or  four  believers,  who  have  confidence  in  each  other."  Only 
it  is  particularly  observed  that  "in  one  of  these  bands,  all 
must  be  men,  or  all  women;  and  all  married  or  all  unmarried." 


310  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XX. 

The  wisdom  of  this  precaution  will  appear  directly.  The 
fourth  article  on  which  the  members  of  the  "band"  agree,  is 
"  to  speak  each  of  us  in  order,  freely  and  plainly,  the  true 
state  of  our  souls,  with  the  faults  we  have  committed  in  tem- 
pers,  words  or  actions  (in  "  thought,  word  or  deed,"  Wesley 
originally  wrote  it),  and  the  temptations  we  have  felt  since 
our  last  meeting."  The  sixth  article  is  "to  desire  some  per- 
son among  us  to  speak  his  own  state  first,  and  then  ask  the 
rest  in  order  as  many  and  as  searching  questions  as  may  be, 
concerning  their  state,  sins  and  temptations."  They  manage 
this  matter  a  little  differently  at  Rome,  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  they  have  a  better  confessional  than  this.  But  there 
is  more  to  come:  among  "the  questions  proposed  to  one  before 
he  is  admitted"  to  the  band,  we  find  the  following:  "Is  it 
your  desire  and  design  to  be  on  this  and  all  other  occasions 
entirely  open,  so  as  to  speak  without  disguise  and  without  re- 
serve." Wesley  wrote  the  latter  part  originally  as  follows  : 
"  So  as  to  speak  everything  that  is  in  your  heart,  without 
EXCEPTION,  without  disguise,  and  without  reserve!"  Popery 
herself  demands  no  more  thorough  confession  than  this.  And 
besides,  the  following  questions  are  required  to  be  asked  "  at 
every  meeting,"  viz.  "  What  known  sins  have  you  committed 
since  our  last  meeting?  What  particular  temptations  have 
you  met  with  ?"  After  what  we  have  seen,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  Mr.  Wesley  should  write  a  highly  commendatory 
life  of  Mr.  De  Renty  (a  Roman  Catholic),  nor  that  the  fol- 
lowing passages  should  proceed  from  his  pen:  "One  day  he 
visited  a  person,  who  from  groundless  suspicion  had  cruelly 
used  his  wife.  Mr.  De  Renty  accosted  him  with  such  lan- 
guage, that  he  was  persuaded  at  length  to  go  to  confession  !  ! 
which  he  had  not  done  in  twelve  years  before."  And  of  De 
Renty  himself,  he  says — "  He  made  his  confession  (to  a  priest) 
almost  every  day  till  his  death ! !"  This  biography  of  a  thor- 
ough papist,  Wesley  placed  in  his  "Christian  Library,"  and 
recommended  to  his  followers.     "  He  had  great  respect  (he 


Let.  XX.  ARTICLES   AND   DISCIPLINE.  311 

adds)  for  holy  persons,  especially  for  priests.  Whenever  bo 
met  them,  he  saluted  them  with  profound  humility:  and  in 
his  travels,  he  would  alight  off  his  horse  to  do  it."  "  And 
without  reply  or  disputing,  with  the  utmost  respect  and  sub- 
mission, he  exactly  followed  the  order  of  his  director"  (or 
confessor).  The  reader  will  recollect  —  "  Reverently  obey 
your  chief  ministers!  J" 

9.  On  page  105,  infants  are  called  "  elect  children  " — im- 
plying that  as,  according  to  Arminians,  election  brings  with 
it  non-election,  there  are  non-elect  infants,  some  of  whom  may 
be  in  hell!  The  use  Methodists  make  of  the  false  charge  of 
"  infant  damnation  "  brought  against  Calvinists,  was  noticed 
in  a  former  Letter.  "  Thus,"  says  Dr.  Musgrave,  "  thousands 
of  uninformed  people  are  persuaded  that  Presbyterians  do 
verily  believe  *  *  *  that  children  not  a  span  long  are  in 
hell!"  If  we  thought  these  "accusers  of  the  brethren" 
really  believed  their  own  statements,  we  should  at  least  feel 
pity  for  their  want  of  information.  The  Rev.  Parsons  Cook, 
however,  says  :  "We  have  been  told  by  a  seceding  Methodist 
minister.,  that  it  is  well  known  to  him  that  Methodist  minis- 
ters generally  understand,  as  well  as  we  do,  that  this  doctrine 
is  not  preached  by  us  ;  but  that  they  purposely  keep  alive  the 
imputation  because  of  the  advantage  which  they  have  from  it." 

Under  all  the  circumstances,  there  is  much  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  this  testimony  is  true.  Yet  their  five  thousand 
preachers  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  members  are  busied 
day  and  night  in  circulating  such  representations  of  Calvinism 
as  the  following :  "  Moloch  caused  only  children  to  pass 
through  the  fire,  and  that  fire  was  soon  quenched ;  or,  the 
corruptible  body  being  consumed,  its  torment  was  at  an  end. 
But  God,  by  his  eternal  decree,  fixed  before  they  had  done 
good  or  evil,  causes  not  only  children  a  span  long,  but  the 
parents  also,  to  pass  through  the  fire  that  shall  never  be 
quenched,  *  *  *  and  the  body  being  now  incorruptible,  will 
be  ever  consuming  and  never  consumed."* 
*  Doct  Tracts,  p.  173. 


312  DIFFICULTIES   OF  ARMINIANISM.  Let.  XX. 

We  now  bring  this  expose  of  "  the  Difficulties  of  Arminian 
Methodism"  to  a  close.  Not  because  the  theme  is  exhausted, 
but  because  under  the  fourteen  distinct  heads  already  stated, 
enough  has  been  said,  if  we  are  not  greatly  mistaken,  to  sat- 
isfy every  impartial  mind  of  the  true  character  of  that  system. 
Is  it  possible  that  the  God  of  truth  has  adopted  such  a  scheme 
of  doctrine  and  discipline  as  this  to  spread  Scripture  holiness 
through  the  world  !  Is  it  probable  that  He  who  prayed, 
"  Sanctify  them  by  thy  truth,"  is  the  author  and  patron  of 
Arminian  Methodism  ?  We  speak  of  course  of  the  system  aa 
distinguished  by  its  peculiarities  from  the  doctrine  and  gov- 
ernment revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  We  have  not  questioned 
the  fact,  that  so  far  as  Methodism  teaches  certain  great  truths 
common  to  all  Christians,  she  has  done  good — neither  is  it 
denied  that  Unitarianism  and  even  Popery,  embrace  many 
valuable  truths,  but  marred  and  enfeebled  by  hateful  corrup- 
tions. To  a  certain  extent,  the  same  is  true  of  Arminian 
Methodism.  And  the  blind  spirit  of  violence  and  misrepre- 
sentation which  her  leading  writers  exhibit  toward  Presbyte- 
rians and  other  Calvinistic  bodies,  is  only  a  bitter  fruit  of  her 
delusions.  "  There  are  many  truly  excellent  men  in  the 
ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church,  and  thousands 
of  truly  pious  persons  in  her  communion"* — but  it  is  also 
true  that  the  improprieties  and  excesses  which  have  come 
under  review,  are  not  commonly  approved  nor  countenanced 
by  that  class  of  Methodists. 

If  the  Scriptures  were  designed  to  be  our  pattern  in  all 
things  pertaining  to  truth  and  godliness — if  the  decisions  of 
reason  founded  upon  the  word  of  God,  demand  our  respect, 
next  to  the  Inspired  Oracles  themselves,  we  are  compelled  to 
believe  that  much  remains  to  be  done  to  fashion  Arminian 
Methodism  agreeably  to  "  the  pattern  shewed  in  the  mount." 
And  whatever  else  may  have  been  done  or  left  undone,  one 
thing,  we  think,  has  been  fully  established,  viz.  that  there 
are  vulnerable  points  connected  with  the  Arminian  scheme, 
*  Dr.  Musgrave. 


Let.  XX.  ARTICLES   AND   DISCIPLINE.  313 

which  arc  far  from  justifying  the  air  of  arrogance  and  tone 
of  denunciation  so  common  with  its  modern  advocates. 

Much  more  might  be  said  of  the  strange  methods  they  often 
adopt  to  advance  their  sectarian  projects — their  garbled  quo- 
t.itinus,  their  unscrupulous  denunciations,  their  unmitigated 
exclusiveness,  their  spurious  zeal  in  pressing  their  ministra- 
tions upon  localities  abundantly  supplied  with  evangelical 
preaching,  (only  not  Methodism !)  their  great  joy,  not  so 
much  "  over  the  conversion  of  the  ninety  and  nine"  impeni- 
tent, as  "over  the  conversion  of  one  Presbyterian  sinner," 
their  gladness  when  they  succeed  in  making  a  raid  upon 
Calvinistic,  and  even  upon  other  Arminian  churches.  "  How 
frequently,"  to  use  the  language  of  "  the  pastoral  letter"  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Lexington,  Va.  "  in  the  midst  of  their 
charitable  professions,  have  even  their  pulpits  resounded  with 
6evere  denunciations  against  us,  representing  us  as  a  set  of 
hypocritical  formalists — as  holding  doctrines  which  came  from 
hell  and  lead  to  hell.  Have  they  not  times  innumerable 
reviled  our  ministers  as  avaricious  hirelings,"  &c.  But  to 
enlarge  upon  such  topics  as  these,  would  swell  our  work  be- 
yond all  reasonable  bounds. 

27 


APPENDIX  I. 


.FALSE    QUOTATIONS    EXPOSED. 

In  this  Appendix  we  propose  to  examine  certain  references,  winch 
appear  in  a  popular  Methodist  tract,  entitled,  "A  Dialogue  between  a 
Predestinariau  and  his  Friend."  This  tract,  a  favorite  instrument  of 
sectarian  zeal,  was  written  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  it  is  cited  by  Drs. 
Bangs,  Fisk,  and  others,  with  such  frequency,  and  its  blunders  are 
copied  and  circulated  with  so  much  confidence  and  industry,  as  to 
justify  an  investigation  of  its  merits.  Blindly  following  the  authority 
of  this  publication,  these  learned  gentlemen  have  quoted  the  chapters 
of  the  Assembly's  Catechism,  and  thus  exposed  themselves  to  the 
correction  of  any  well-instructed  Sabbath  scholar. 

This  publication  we  suppose  to  be  one  of  those  methods  by  which 
the  father  of  Methodism  purposed  "to  stop  the  mouths  of  Calvin- 
ists."  (Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  405.)  It  is  graced  with  the  following  line: 
"  Out  of  thine  own  mouth!"  The  truth  of  the  motto  will  appear  as 
we  pass  along.  We  will  first  notice  the  references  to  the  Assembly's 
Confession,  or  Catechism,  as  they  call  it. 

Friend.  "  Sir,  I  have  heard  that  you  make  God  the  author  of  all 
sin,  and  the  destroyer  of  the  greater  part  of  mankind  without  mercy." 

Predestinarian.  "I  deny  it;  I  only  say,  'God  did  from  all  eter- 
nity unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.'  "  (Assembly's 
Catechism,  chap.  3.) 

Here  it  is  supposed  that  we  are  convicted  "  out  of  our  own  vwuth," 
of  making  "  God  the  author  of  all  sin."  But  besides  that  the  very 
next  words  in  the  Confession  are — "yet  so  as  neither  is  God  the  author 
of  sin," — we  refer  to  the  Confession  itself,  and  to  the  uniform  testi- 
mony of  Calvinistic  writers,  to  prove  that  they  maintain  the  distinction 
between  the  efficient  and  the  permissive  decrees  of  God.  And  as  to  our 
holding  that  "  the  greater  part  of  mankind  are  destroyed  without 
mercy,"  the  quotation  from  the  Confession  says  nothing  upon  that 
subject;  and  until  the  proof  is  adduced,  it  must  be  considered  as  a 
groundless  assertion. 

F.    "  Does  sin  necessarily  come  to  pass  ?" 

P.  "Undoubtedly.  For  '  the  almighty  power  of  God  extends  itself 
to  the  first  fall,  and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men.'"  (Assem.  Cat. 
chap.  5.) 

(314) 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED.         315 

This  extract  is  erroneous  and  unfair  in  two  respects  :  1.  It  is  given 
as  a  continuous  quotation,  whereas  two  whole  lines  are  omitted,  which 
are  essential  to  the  sense.  2.  The  Confession  does  not  say,  "  the 
almighty  power  of  God  extends  itself  to  the  first  fall,"  &c.  There  is  no 
such  sentiment  in  the  passage,  which  is  as  follows:  "The  almighty 
power,  unsearchable  wisdom,  and  infinite  goodness  of  God,  so  far  manifest 
themselves  in  his  providence,  that  it  (his  providence)  extendeth  itself," 
&c.  We  greatly  fear  that  this  method  of  stopping  the  mouths  of  Cal- 
vinists  will  not  redound  to  the  honor  of  its  author  and  advocates. 

We  next  examine  the  references  to  Calvin's  Institutes : 

I.  (Book  1,  chap.  16,  sec.  8.)  "Nothing  is  more  absurd  than  to 
think  any  thing  at  all  is  done  but  by  the  ordination  of  God."  Allen, 
whose  translation  is  used  by  Watson,  renders  it  as  follows:  "Nothing 
could  be  more  absurd  than  for  any  thing  to  happen  independently  of  the 
ordination  of  God,  because  it  would  happen  at  random,  or  by  chance." 
The  object  of  Wesley  was  to  convict  Calvin  of  teaching  that  sin  was  so 
ordained  as  that  God  was  its  author.  But  besides  the  mistranslation, 
"by  the  ordination  of  God,"  as  though  that  were  the  efficient  cause 
of  all  things,  instead  of  "  independently  of  the  ordination  of  God;"  just 
six  lines  farther  down,  Calvin  quotes  Augustine  with  approbation,  as 
proving  that  "God  is  the  supreme  and  first  (or  highest)  cause  of  all 
things,  because  nothing  happens  but  by  his  command  or  permission.  He 
does  not  suppose  God,"  continues  Calvin,  "to  remain  an  idle  spectator, 
determining  to  permit  any  thing"  (and  every  thing),  that  is,  to  look 
listlessly  on  and  resign  the  helm  of  the  universe  to  be  controlled  by 
contingence  or  chance.  "  There  is  an  intervention  of  actual  volition 
(that  is,  a  ivill  to  permit,)  which  otherwise  could  never  be  considered 
as  a  cause."  The  reader  can  now  judge  whether  Calvin  meant  to 
teach  that  God  is  the  author  or  efficient  cause  of  sin,  and  whether  the 
above  quotation  is  consistent  with  truth. 

II.  (Book  1,  chap.  15  (16),  sec.  3.)  "Every  action  and  motion  of 
every  creature  is  so  governed  by  the  hidden  counsel  of  God,  that  nothing 
can  come  to  pass  but  what  was  ordained  by  him."  The  following  is 
the  translation  of  Allen :  "In  the  creatures  there  is  no  erratic  power, 
or  action,  or  motion  ;  but  they  are  so  governed  by  the  secret  counsel 
of  God  that  nothing  can  happen  but  what  is  subject  to  his  knowledge 
and  decreed  by  his  will ;"  that  is,  as  explained  above,  nothing  can  hap- 
pen but  by  his  command  or  permission.  Calvin  is  speaking  of  "  the  stars, 
and  comets,  and  signs  of  heaven,"  and  rebukes  "  immoderate  and  super- 
stitious fears,"  as  though  these  "creatures  had  of  themselves  power  to 
hurt  us,  or  could  fortuitously  injure  us."     And  though  his  language 


316  APPENDIX   I. 

admits  of  being  extended  to  intelligent  moral  agents,  yet  as  explained 
above  by  himself,  it  is  obviously  perverted  from  its  original  and  true 
meaning. 

III.  (Book  1,  chap.  15  (1G),  sec.  8.)  "  The  wills  of  men  are  so  gov- 
erned by  the  will  of  God,  that  they  are  carried  ou  straight  to  the  mark 
which  he  has  foreordained."  This  is  designed  to  show  that  Calvin 
taught  that  God  works  on  the  wills  of  men,  so  as  to  work  ivickedness  in 
the  wicked,  and  so  must  be  the  author  of  sin.  But  look  a  moment  at  the 
language  of  Calvin  in  its  connection :  "  Not  only  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  but  also  the  deliberations  and  volitions  of  men  are  so  governed 
by  his  providence,  as  to  be  directed  to  the  end  appointed  by  it.  What 
then?  You  will  say,  does  nothing  happen  fortuitously  or  contingently?" 
He  had  set  himself  to  prove  that  there  could  "  be  no  such  thing  as  for- 
tuitous conlingence,"  or  chance  (sec.  4) ;  and  in  the  passage  referred  to 
by  the  author  of  the  tract,  he  was  showing  that  not  even  the  minds, 
thoughts  and  volitions  of  men  are  exerted  "  independently  of  God, 
whilst  they  cannot  even  speak  a  word  but  what  he  chooses."  (Sec.  G. ) 
But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  author  of  sin,  or  the  cause  of  wicked- 
ness in  heart  and  life  ?  How  does  God's  holding  the  hearts  of  men  in 
his  hand,  and  turning  them  as  rivers  of  water  are  turned  (that  is, 
overrruling,  restraining,  and  limiting  their  exercises,  and  especially 
their  wickedness);  how  does  this  prove,  as  the  tract  affirms,  that  "  all 
must  do  just  what  theydo,"so  that  they  are  deprived  of  liberty  of  will 
and  free  agency  ?  The  passage  is  shamefully  misrepresented  and  per- 
verted from  its  plain  and  obvious  meaning,  to  teach  what  Calvin  never 
taught,  as  will  yet  more  fully  appear.  The  scope  of  the  passage  is  to 
overthrow  the  atheistical  notion  of  fortune  or  chance.  Not  a  sparrow 
falls,  nor  a  thought  or  volition  of  the  mind  arises,  but  what  is  under 
the  superintendence  of  the  Divine  Providence.  God  has  his  own  ap- 
pointed ends  in  his  all-wise  plan,  to  promote,  even  by  the  wickedness 
of  the  wicked,  and  therefore  it  does  not  occur  by  chance,  but  by  his 
permission,  purposing  so  to  control  and  "restrain"  it,  as  to  make  it 
subserve  his  own  wise  and  holy  purposes.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
Calvin.  "Augustine,"  says  Calvin,  "makes  the  following  correct  dis- 
tinction— 'that  they  sin,  proceeds  from  themselves;  that  in  sinning  they 
perform  this  or  that  particular  action,  is  from  the  power  of  God,  who 
divideth  the  darkness  according  to  his  pleasure.'  "  Book  2,  chap.  4, 
sec.  4.     Is  this  the  same  as  saying,  "  their  sins  proceed  from  God?" 

IV.  (Book  3,  chap.  24,  sec.  8.)  "I  will  not  scruple  to  own  that 
the  will  of  God  lays  a  necessity  on  all  things,  and  that  every  thiDg  he 
wills  necessarily  comes  to  pass." 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED.         317 

The  reference  is  probably  to  a  passage  in  chap.  23,  sec.  8.  "I 
shall  not  hesitate  to  confess  with  Augustiue,  that  the  will  of  God  is  the 
Deoessity  of  things,  and  that  what  he  has  willed  necessarily  conies  to 
pass,  as  those  things  are  really  about  to  happen  which  he  has  foreseen." 

To  say  that  men  are  under  a  necessity  of  committing  sin,  is,  in  the 
common  popular  acceptation  of  the  terms,  both  absurd  and  impious, 
and  this  is  what  Wesley  labors  to  prove  against  Calvin.  But  it  is  a 
very  important  question— "  What  did  Calvin  mean  by  necessity?" 
This  we  discover  by  comparing  other  passages,  thus— "  A  distinction 
has  prevailed  in  the  schools,  of  three  kinds  of  liberty :  the  first,  freedom 
from  necessity;  the  second,  freedom  from  sin;  the  third,  freedom  from 
misery;  of  which  the  first  is  naturally  inherent  in  man,  so  that  nothing 
can  ever  deprive  him  of  it ;  the  other  two  are  lost  by  sin.  This  dis- 
tinction," adds  Calvin,  "/  readily  admit,  except  that  it  improperly 
confounds  necessity  with  coaclion.  And  the  wide  difference  between 
these  things  will  appear  in  another  place."  (Book  2,  chap.  2,  sec.  5, 
&c.)  "When  man  subjected  himself  to  this  necessity,  he  was  not  de- 
prived of  will,  but  of  soundness  of  will."  "  Augustine  thus  expresses 
himself:  '  The  will  being  changed  for  the  worse,  I  know  not  by  what 
corrupt  and  surprising  means,  is  itself  the  author  of  the  necessity  to  which 
it  is  subject,'  &c.  Afterward  he  says  that  we  are  oppressed  with  a 
yoke,  but  no  other  than  that  of  a  voluntary  servitude,"  &c.  &c.  Again, 
Book  2,  chap.  5,  sec.  5.  "Let  them  not  suppose  themselves  excused 
by  necessity,  in  which  very  thing  they  have  a  most  evident  cause  of  their 
condemnation."  "  For  if  we  are  bound  by  our  otvn  passions,  which  are 
under  the  government  of  sin,  so  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  obey  our 
Father,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  plead  this  necessity  in  our 
defense,  the  criminality  of  which  is  within  ourselves,  and  must  be  im- 
puted to  us."  B^ok  2,  chap.  8,  sec.  3.  "Nor  can  we  pretend  to 
excuse  ourselves  by  our  want  of  ability— our  inability  is  our  own 
fault."  Ibid.  From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  the  meaning  of 
the  term  "necessity"  in  Calvin's  work,  is  the  same  with  certainty,  or 
what  Edwards  calls  "philosophical  necessity."  (Edwards  on  the  Will, 
part  1,  sec.  3.) 

That  Calvin  is  greatly  misrepresented  in  this  tract,  as  teaching  ne- 
cessity in  such  a  sense  as  "  that  all  things  come  to  pass  by  the  effica- 
cious and  irresistible  will  of  God,"  is  further  proved  by  his  represent- 
ing men  as  under  the  restraining  influence  of  Divine  grace.  Thus 
Book  2,  chap.  2,  sec.  3.  "Should  the  Lord  permit  the  minds  of  men 
to  give  up  the  reins  to  every  lawless  passion,  there  certainly  would  not 
be  an  individual  in  the  world  who  would  not  evince  all  the  crimes  for 
27* 


318  APPENDIX  I. 

■which  Paul  condemns  human  nature."  This  does  not  look  like  im- 
pelling the  will  of  man  to  sin  by  inevitable  necessity!!  Indeed  the 
early  reformers  seem  to  have  been  in  the  habit  of  employing  the  term 
necessity  to  mean  "certainty."  Thus  Luther  (de  servo  arbitrio, 
translated  by  Milner,  Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  v.):  "So  long  as  the  operative 
grace  of  God  is  absent  from  us,  everything  we  do  has  in  it  a  mixture 
of  evil ;  and  therefore  of  necessity  our  works  do  not  avail  to  salvation. 
Here,"  continues  Luther,  "I  do  not  mean  a  necessity  of  compulsion, 
but  a  necessity  as  to  the  certainty  of  the  event."  Indeed  in  the  very 
passage  to  which  we  suppose  reference  is  made  in  the  tract,  Calvin 
explains  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  necessity"  as  used  by  himself  to 
imply  "that  those  things  are  really  about  to  happen  which  God  has 
foreseen."  It  is  not  our  business  to  decide  whether  Wesley's  misrep- 
resentation of  the  passage  was  the  result  of  a  want  of  information,  or 
of  something  else. 

V.  (Book  3,  chap.  23,  sec.  7.)  "God  not  only  foresaw  that  Adam 
would  fall,  but  also  ordained  that  he  should."  The  design  of  this  is 
obviously  to  convict  Calvin  of  teaching  foreordination  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  imply  that  sin  is  brought  about  or  efficiently  caused  by  the  Di- 
vine decree.  But  no  person  of  candor  would  ever  understand  Calvin 
thus.  "God,"  says  Calvin,  "not  only  foresaw  the  fall  of  the  first 
man,  and  the  ruin  of  his  posterity  in  him,  but  also  arranged  all  by 
the  determination  of  his  own  will."  "  It  belongs  to  his  power  to  rule 
and  govern  all  things  by  his  hand."  "He  knew  that  it  was  more 
suitable  to  his  Almighty  goodness  to  bring  good  out  of  evil,  than  not 
to  suffer  (or  permit)  evil  to  exist,"  and  therefore  "ordained  the  life 
of  angels  and  men  in  such  a  manner  as  to  exhibit  in  it,  first,  what  free 
will  was  capable  of  doing,  and  afterward,  what  could  be  effected  by 
the  blessings  of  his  grace  and  the  sentence  of  his  justice."  Here  the 
very  section  which  is  perverted  to  mean  that  Adam  sinned  necessarily, 
by  force  of  the  Divine  decree — this  very  section  affirms  that  Adam  was 
an  example  of  "  what  free  agency  was  capable  of  doing!"  We  should  be 
glad  to  indulge  the  thought  that  this  was  the  effect  of  ignorance. 

VI.  (Book  3,  chap.  24,  sec.  8.)  "He  sinned,  because  God  so  or- 
dained"— "because  the  Lord  saw  good."  The  object  of  this  reference 
is  the  same  with  the  previous  one.  There  is  nothing  in  the  place  re- 
ferred to,  bearing  even  the  most  distant  resemblance  to  the  professed 
extract.  In  chap.  23,  sec.  8,  we  read — "The  first  man  fell  because 
the  Lord  had  determined  it  should  so  happen."  "He  determined 
thus,  only  because  he  foresaw  it  would  tend  to  the  just  illustration  of 
the  glory  of  his  name."     But  no  person  willing  to  do  justice  to  Calvin, 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED.         319 

•would  ever  think  of  interpreting  this  to  mean  that  Adam  sinned  ne- 
cessarily by  force  of  God's  decree.  For  besides  the  proof  already 
given,  that  Calvin  taught  that  sin  was  ordained  permissive.li/  (though 
not  by  a  bare  permission),  in  the  very  same  section,  and  within  a  few 
lines  of  the  supposed  extract,  we  read — "  .Man  falls  according  to  the 
(permissive)  appointment  of  Divine  Providence;  but  he  falls  by  his 
own  fault."  "They  insist  that  God  permits  the  destruction  of  the 
impious,  but  does  not  will  it.  But  what  reason  shall  we  assign  for 
his  permitting  it,  but  because  it  is  his  will  (to  permit  it).  It  is  not 
probable,  however,  that  man  procured  his  own  destruction  by  tho 
mere  permission,  without  any  appointment  of  God."  (In  other  words, 
without  his  having  appointed  to  overrule  the  fall  of  man  to  his  own 
glory.)  "Besides,"  continues  Calvin,"  "their  perdition  depends  on 
the  Divine  predestination  in  such  a  manner  that  the  cause  and  matter  of 
it  are  found  in  themselves."  "Wherefore,  let  us  rather  contemplato 
the  evident  cause  of  condemnation  in  the  corrupt  nature  of  mankind, 
than  search  after  a  hidden  and  altogether  incomprehensible  one,  in  tho 
predestination  of  God."  These  passages,  Wesley,  if  he  had  ever  read 
the  book,  must  have  known  to  be  there.  The  very  section  supposed 
to  be  quoted  by  the  tract  to  convict  Calvin  of  holding  that  God  ap- 
points or  decrees  sin,  so  that  it  comes  to  pass  by  his  efficacious  and 
irresistible  will — this  very  section  affirms  that  "man  sinned  by  his 
own  fault" — and  that  the  cause  and  matter  of  his  perdition  is  in  him- 
self! ! 

VII.  (Book  3,  chap.  23,  sec.  7.)  They  deny  that  the  Scripturo 
says  God  decreed  Adam's  fall.  They  say  he  might  have  chosen  either 
to  fall  or  not:  and  that  God  foreordained  only  to  treat  him  according 
to  his  desert.  As  if  God  had  created  the  noblest  of  all  his  creatures, 
without  foreordaining  what  should  become  of  him."  The  design  of 
this  reference,  as  of  the  previous  ones,  is  to  convict  Calvin  of  teaching 
that  sin  comes  to  pass  necessarily,  that  men  must  do  just  what  they 
do,  and  that  they  sin  under  the  impelling  influence  of  God's  will,  ne- 
cessarily and  irresistibly.  But  this  is  an  utter  misrepresentation  of 
Calvin's  meaning.  "They  maintain,"  he  says,  "that  he  (Adam)  was 
possessed  of  free  choice,  that,  he  might  be  the  author  of  his  own  fato 
(this  Calvin  does  not  dispute);  but  that  God  decreed  nothing  more 
than  to  treat  him  according  to  his  desert."  Calvin  admits  that  Adam 
was  possessed  of  free  choice.  Thus,  Book  1,  chap.  15,  sec.  8.  "Adam 
could  have  stood  if  he  would,  since  he  fell  merely  by  his  own  will." 
"  His  choice  of  good  and  evil  was  free."  "  He  was  the  voluutary  pro- 
curer of  his  own  destruction."     But  he  utterly  denies  that  God  de- 


320  APPENDIX  I. 

creed  "  nothing  more  than  to  treat  him  according  to  his  desert."  And 
in  the  very  same  section  he  goes  on  to  explain  his  meaning — that  "it 
belongs  to  Divine  power  to  rule  and  govern  all  things  by  his  hand," 
and  "  to  bring  good  out  of  evil."  And  he  rejects  the  idea  that  "God 
had  created  the  noblest  of  his  creatures  without  any  determinate 
end" — that  is,  foreseeing  his  fall,  he  determined  so  to  rule  and  govern 
his  apostasy  and  its  effects  by  his  hand,  as  in  the  end  to  make  the 
wrath  of  man  to  praise  him,  and  the  remainder  to  restrain,  to  the  glory 
of  his  great  name.  Every  one  must  perceive  what  an  utter  perversion 
of  the  passage  is  made  by  the  author  of  the  tract. 

VIII.  (Book  3,  chap.  31,  sec.  1.)  "  All  men  are  not  created  for  the 
same  end ;  but  some  are  foreordained  to  eternal  life ;  others  to  eter- 
nal damnation.  So  according  as  every  man  was  created  for  the  one 
end  or  tiie  other,  we  say  he  was  elected  or  predestinated  to  life,  or 
reprobated."  This  reference  is  to  chapter  31,  whereas  there  are  only 
25  chapters  in  the  book.  The  stereotyped  volume  of  tracts  has  it 
chap.  21,  sec.  1 — but  this  too  is  a  blunder.  After  considerable  search, 
we  found  in  chap.  21,  sec.  6,  a  passage  which  bears  a  strong  resem- 
blance to  the  professed  extract ;  but  from  the  numerous  gross  errors  in 
these  references,  we  must  suppose  that  the  author  of  the  tract  had 
never  seen  the  original  work,  but  was  the  humble  copyist  of  some  pre- 
ceding bungler.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Calvin  employs  very  strong 
language,  though  perhaps  not  stronger  than  the  Apostle  Jude,  speak- 
ing of  "certain  men  crept  in  unawares,"  "ungodly  men,"  "who  were 
of  old  ordained  to  this  condemnation"  (Jude  4):  nor  stronger  than 
Peter  (1  Pet.  2:8),  "Being  disobedient,  whereunto  also  they  were 
appointed:"  nor  stronger  than  Wesley — "God  Preappointed  all  dis- 
obedient unbelievers  to  damnation,  not  without,  but  according  to  their 
works,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world :"  or  as  he  afterward 
explains  himself —  "  God  eternally  reprobated  all  disobedient  unbe- 
lievers, as  such,  to  damnation."  If  our  Methodist  friends  exclaim, 
"horrible!"  "most  horrible!!"  we  cannot  help  it.  There  it  stands 
in  their  own  approved  standard  writings.  No  Calvinist  teaches  repro- 
bation in  stronger  terms  than  those,  and  as  to  the  Presbyterian  Con- 
fession, it  does  not  even  employ  the  term  "reprobation."  See  also  refer- 
ence 15,  for  Calvin's  views  of  man's  being  created  for  a  certain  end." 

IX.  (Book  3,  chap.  21,  sec.  7.)  "  God  hath  once  for  all  appointed, 
by  an  eternal  and  unchangeable  decree,  to  whom  he  would  give  salva- 
tion, and  whom  he  would  devote  to  destruction."  We  have  just  seen 
how  plainly  and  forcibly  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  followers  teach  "  eternal 
reprobation,"   or  reprobation   to    "damnation,"  of  "all  disobedient 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED.         321 

unbelievers,  according  to  God's  foreknowledge  of  all  their  works,  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  And  what  is  still  more  remarkable,  in 
the  tract,  "  Predestination  calmly  considered,"  they  say,  "This  decree 
(of  reprobation)  without  doubt  God  will  not  change,  and  man  cannot 
resist."  (Doct.  Tracts,  p.  15.)  So  that  the}'  teach  not  only  that 
"reprobation  to  damnation"  is  eternal,  but  that  it  is  unchangeable  and 
irresistible  ! 

X.  (Book  3,  chap.  22,  sec.  1.)  "  So  the  vulgar  think,  that  God,  as 
he  foresees  every  man  will  deserve,  elects  them  to  life,  or  devotes  them 
to  death  and  damnation."  Allen  has  it — "It  is  a  notiou  commonly 
entertained,  that  God  adopts  as  his  children  such  as  he  foreknows  will 
be  deserving  of  his  grace  ;  and  devotes  to  the  damnation  of  death  others 
whose  dispositions  he  sees  will  be  inclined  to  wickedness  and  impiety." 
With  regard  to  man's  "deserving  Divine  grace,"  we  need  only  quote 
Article  9  of  the  Methodist  standards,  viz.  "  We  are  accounted  right- 
eous only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or 
deservings!"  But  that  Calvin  did  maintain  that  the  wicked  are  "de- 
voted to  death  for  their  evil  deserts,"  has  been  already  shown. 
"  Their  perdition  depends  on  the  Divine  predestination  in  such  a 
manner  that  the  cause  and  matter  of  it  are  found  in  themselves." 
"  The  evident  cause  of  condemnation,"  he  says,  "  is  the  corrupt  nature 
of  munkind."  (Book  3,  chap.  23,  sec.  8.)  "It  remains  now  to  be  seen 
why  the  Lord  does  that  which  it  is  evident  he  does.  If  it  be  replied 
that  this  is  done  because  men  have  deserved  it  by  their  impiety,  wick- 
edness and  ingratitude,  it  will  be  a  just  and  true  observation."  (Book 
3,  chap.  24,  sec.  14.)  The  prominent  object  before  Calvin's  mind,  in 
the  passage  quoted  in  the  tract,  is  "  the  distinction  between  different 
persons,  as  it  appears  in  the  grace  aud  providence  of  God."  He  is 
speaking  of  what  Turretine  and  modern  Calvinists  call  "  comparative 
election  and  reprobation  " — in  other  words,  of  the  reason  why,  from 
the  mass  of  mankind,  all  by  nature  equally  and  utterly  undeserving, 
God  subdues,  converts,  and  saves  one,  and  that  one  oftentimes  the 
"publican  and  harlot,"  the  most  abandoned  or  profane;  while  others 
are  left,  in  many  cases  the  most  moral  and  decent  in  their  outward 
deportment.  In  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  passage  has  altogether  a 
different  meaning  from  what  it  is  made  to  bear  in  Wesley's  tract. 
Calvin  takes  for  granted  that  all  are  "corrupt,"  and  justly  exposed  to 
Divine  wrath  ;  whereas  he  is  quoted  as  teaching  that  men  are  devoted 
to  death  without  any  respect  to  their  deserts.  "We  teach,"  adds 
Calvin,  "nothing  but  that  God  has  always  been  at  liberty  to  bestow 
his  grace  on  whom  he  cheoses."     But  the  very  fact  of  his  bestowing 


322  APPENDIX  I. 

grace,  supposes  the  recipients  to  be  undeserving,  or  deserving  of  death. 
By  wresting  a  sentence  or  part  of  a  sentence  out  of  its  connection,  the 
Bible  can  be  made  to  teach  Atheism. 

XL  (Book  3,  chap.  23,  sec.  C.)  "God  of  his  own  good  pleasure 
ordains  that  many  should  be  born,  who  are  from  the  womb  doomed 
to  inevitable  damnation."  The  original  Latin  of  this  last  phrase 
is  "certte  morti,"  which  every  school  boy  knows  to  mean  "certain 
death,"  and  is  a  very  different  thing  from  "  inevitable  damna- 
tion." An  event  which  is  infallibly  foreknown,  is  "  certain ;"  but  as  it 
respects  the  agents  in  its  accomplishment,  it  may  not  be  "  inevitable ;  " 
that  is,  they  may  bring  it  about  in  the  exercise  of  perfect  freedom  of 
choice,  and  may  act  otherwise  if  they  choose  so  to  act ;  although  it  is 
infallibly  foreknown  how  they  will  choose  to  act.  Besides,  if  it  be 
true,  as  Wesley  says,  that  "  God  foreappoiuts  or  predestinates  all  diso- 
bedient unbelievers  to  damnation,  according  to  his  foreknowledge  of 
all  their  works,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world" — "if  (from  eter- 
nity) he  refuses  or  reprobates  all  disobedient  unbelievers,  as  such,  to 
damnation,  how  does  this  differ  from  "dooming  them  to  certain  death 
from  the  womb  ?"     "  Can  you  split  this  hair  ?" 

XII.  (Book  3,  chap.  24,  sec.  12.)  "God  has  his  judgments  toward 
the  reprobates,  whereby  he  executes  his  decree  concerning  them."  (In 
other  words,  "he  refuses  or  reprobates  all  disobedient  unbelievers,  as 
such,  to  damnation.")  As  many  therefore  as  he  created  to  live  mis- 
erably and  then  perish  everlastingly,  these,  that  they  may  be  brought 
to  the  end  for  which  they  were  created,  he  sometimes  deprives  of  the 
possibility  ("opportunity" — Allen)  of  hearing  the  word,  and  at  other 
times,  by  the  preaching  thereof,  blinds  and  stupefies  them  the  more." 
The  first  important  inquiry,  in  order  to  a  right  understanding  of  this 
passage,  is,  what  did  Calvin  mean  by  man  being  "  created  for  a  certain 
end  ?"  If  it  can  be  shown  that  he  employs  language  equally  strong, 
almost  the  very  same  terms,  in  reference  to  all,  both  elect  and  repro- 
bate, the  force  of  the  objection  will  be  done  away.  Well,  look  at 
Book  2,  chap.  16,  sec.  3.  "In  respect  of  our  corrupt  nature,  and  the 
succeeding  depravity  of  our  lives,  we  are  all  really  offensive  to  God, 
guilty  in  his  sight,  and  born  to  the  damnation  of  hell!"  The 
meaning  evidently  is,  that  men  without  exception  (one  only  excepted), 
are  justly  exposed  to  that  awful  doom,  sin  having  been  permitted  to 
enter  the  world,  "and  so  death  has  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 
have  sinned."  That  God  oftentimes  "  deprives  men  of  the  opportunity 
of  hearing  the  gospel ;"  that  he  sometimes  "removes  the  candlestick 
out  of  his  place  "  (Rev.  2  :  5),  in  just  punishment  for  misimprovemeut 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED.         323 

of  past  privileges,  we  did  not  suppose  was  denied  by  any  Christian ;  nor 
that,  for  the  same  reason,  he  sometimes  permits  the  gospel  to  become 
a  Bavor  of  death  unto  death,  so  as  "to  blind  and  stupefy  the  more." 
Do  Methodists  deny  this?  If  any  thing  further  need  be  said  to  ex- 
plain the  extract  from  Calvin,  we  refer  to  the  section  before  quoted  for 
the  followiug:  "  For  notwithstanding  we  are  sinners  through  our  own, 
fault,  yet  we  are  still  his  creatures  ;  notwithstanding  we  have  brought 
death  upon  ourselves,  yet  he  had  created  us  for  life." 

XIII.  (Book  3,  chap.  24,  sec.  13.)  "He  calls  to  them,  that  they 
may  be  more  deaf;  he  kindles  a  light,  that  they  may  be  more  blind  ; 
he  brings  his  doctrine  to  them,  that  they  may  be  more  ignorant,"  &c. 
In  this  passage  Calvin  is  expounding  Isaiah  G  :  9,  10 — "  Go  and  tell  this 
people  (saith  God  to  the  prophet),  Hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand 
not ;  and  see  ye  indeed,  but  perceive  not.  Make  the  heart  of  this 
people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they 
see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand  with 
their  heart,  and  convert,  and  be  healed."  See  also  Mark  4:  12; 
Luke  8  :  10 ;  John  12  :  40.  If  Calvin  has  erred  in  the  use  of  language, 
he  is  certainly  in  very  good  company.  But  the  tract  represents  him. 
as  intending  to  convey  the  idea  that  God  by  direct  and  positive  influ- 
ence upon  the  minds  of  the  wicked,  "  hardens,  blinds  and  stupefies" 
their  souls  in  sin,  so  that  he  is  the  author  of  their  wickedness.  But 
he  himself  elsewhere  interprets  his  language  to  mean,  "  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God,"  or  "  the  righteous  vengeance  of  God,  in  abandon- 
ing the  hearts  of  the  stubborn  and  rebellious  to  Satan,  to  be  confirmed 
in  obstinacy."  But  Dr.  W.  Fisk,  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  General 
Conference,  says  :  "  God  blinds  men  aud  hardens  their  hearts  judicially, 
as  a  just  punishment  for  their  abuse  of  their  agency."  Disc.  p.  9. 
Speaking  of  Satan,  Calvin  observes  :  "  He  being  naturally  wicked,  has 
not  the  least  inclination  toward  obedience  to  the  Divine  will,  but  is 
wholly  bent  on  insolence  and  rebellion.  It  therefore  arises  from  him- 
self and  his  wickedness  that  he  opposes  God — but  since  he  holds  him 
tied  and  bound  with  the  bridle  of  his  power,  he  executes  only  those 
things  which  are  Divinely  permitted ;  and  thus  whether  he  will  or  not, 
he  obeys  his  Creator,  being  constrained  to  fulfill  any  service  to  which 
be  impels  him."  Book  1,  chap.  14,  sec.  17.  "They  (the  wicked)  can 
lay  no  blame  upon  God,  for  they  find  in  themselves  nothing  but  evil ; 
and  in  him  only  a  legitimate  use  of  their  wickedness."  Chap.  17.  sec. 
5.  '•  This  exception  must  always  be  made,  that  the  cause  of  sin, 
whose  roots  perpetually  dwell  iu  the  sinner  himself,  docs  not  arise  j'rom 
God."  Com.  ou  Rom.  1 :  24. 


324  APPENDIX   I. 

XIV.  (Book  1,  chap.  17,  sec.  5.)  "Thieves,  murderers  and  other 
malefactors,  are  God's  instruments  which  he  uses  to  execute  what  he 
hath  decreed  in  himself."  The  design  of  this  extract  is  to  convict 
Calvin  of  teaching  that  "  God  by  his  present  irresistible  power  and 
will,  is  the  author  of  those  actions  which  are  sins,  and  of  the  sins 
themselves."  "I  admit,"  says  Calvin,  "that  thieves,  homicides,  and 
other  malefactors,  are  instruments  of  Divine  Providence,  whom  the 
Lord  uses  for  the  execution  of  the  judgments  which  he  bath  appointed." 
By  examining  the  scope  of  the  passage,  it  will  be  found  that  the  design 
of  Calvin  was  directly  the  opposite  of  that  which  Wesley  charges  upon 
him.  "Persons,"  he  says,  "inconsiderately  and  erroneously  ascribe 
all  past  events  to  the  absolute  providence  of  God."  "Since  neither 
thefts,  nor  adulteries,  nor  homicides,  are  perpetrated  without  the  inter- 
vention of  the  Divine  will,  'why,' they  ask,  '  shall  a  homicide  be  pun- 
ished for  having  slain  him  whose  life  the  Lord  had  terminated  ?  If  all 
such  characters  are  subservient  to  the  Divine  will,  why  shall  they  be 
punished?'"  "But  I  deny,"  replies  Calvin,  "that  they  serve  the 
Divine  will.  For  we  cannot  say  that  he  who  is  influenced  by  a  wicked 
heart,  acts  in  obedience  to  God."  "  But  it  is  said,  if  he  would  not  per- 
mit it,  we  should  not  do  it.  This  I  grant.  But  do  we  perform  evil 
actions  with  the  design  of  pleasing  him?  AVe  precipitate  ourselves 
into  them,"  &c.  Is  this  the  same  as  saying,  "  men  commit  sinful  ac- 
tions by  the  present  irresistible  power  and  will  of  God  ?"  Calvin  i? 
speaking  of  the  "legitimate  use"  which  God  makes  of  his  unholj 
creatures,  and  not  at  all  of  his  irresistible  power  in  causing  their  ac- 
tions. "So  when  the  matter  and  guilt  of  evil  reside  in  a  bad  man, 
why  should  God  be  supposed  to  contract  any  defilement,  if  he  uses  his 
service  according  to  his  own  pleasure;"  in  other  words,  if  he  "makes 
his  wrath  to  praise  him,"  &c.  The  use  which  the  author  of  the  tract 
makes  of  Calvin's  language,  "can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  a  guile- 
less Christianity." 

XV.  (Book  1,  chap.  17,  sec.  11.)  "  The  devil  and  wicked  men  are 
so  held  in  on  every  side  by  the  hand  of  God,  that  they  cannot  conceive, 
or  contrive,  or  execute  any  mischief  any  further  than  God  himself 
doth  not  permit  only,  but  command.  Nor  are  they  only  held  in  fetters, 
but  compelled  also  as  with  a  bridle  to  perform  obedience  to  those  com- 
mands." This  is  given  as  a  Calvinistic  answer  to  the  question,  "  How 
does  God  make  angels  and  men  sin  ?"  and  is  designed  to  convict  Calvin 
and  Calvinists  of  holding  that  "God  procures  adultery,  cursings,  ly- 
ings, and  by  his  working  on  the  hearts  of  the  wicked,  bends  and  stirs 
them  to  do  evil."     But  the  author  of  "  the  Institutes"  is  grossly 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED.         -°25 

slandered  in  this  representation.     It  is  remarkable  that  the  Socin- 
ians,  Papists  and  Pelagians  of  Turretine's  day,  employed  the  same 
passage  to  bring  odium  upon  Calvin  and  his  theological  sentiments. 
Turretine  replies  that  it  was  cited  dishonestly  ('mala  fide'),  "and  con- 
trary to  the  mind  of  the  author."     "For  the  scope  of  the  passage  ia 
to  fortify  the  minds  of  the  pious  against  fear  and  anxiety,  inasmuch 
as  they  know  that  the  devil  and  wicked  men  are  not  permitted  to  roam 
without  restraint,  but  are  under  the  government  and  direction   of 
Divine  Providence."     Calvin  has  no  reference  at  all  to  the  cause  of 
ein,  but  is  speaking  of  the  limits  which  God  in  his  providence  sets  to 
the  rage  and  malice  of  the  wicked ;  and  thence  he  derives  a  topic  of 
consolation  to  the  pious,   "  when  they  recollect  that  the  devil  and  the 
whole  army  of  the  wicked  are  so  restrained  by  Divine  power,  that  they 
can  neither  conceive  of  any  hostility  against  us,  nor  after  having  con- 
ceived it,  form  a  plan  for  its  accomplishment,  nor  even  move  a  finger 
toward  the  execution  of  such  plan,  any  further  than  he  hath  permitted 
and  even  commanded  them.  They  are  not  only  bound  by  his  chain,  but 
compelled  to  do  him  service."     Is  this  the  same  as  saying  that  "  God 
bends  and  stirs  them  to  commit  adulteries,  cursings,  lyings  ?" 

But  it  is  proper  to  inquire,  What  is  the  meaning  of  Calvin,  when  he 
represents  Satan  and  wicked  men  as  so  controlled  and  restrained  by 
Divine  power,  as  to  do  what  God  not  only  permits,  but  commands.    He 
doubtless  refers  to  such  cases  as  that  of  Job.     God  said,  "Behold,  all 
that  he  hath  is  in  thy  power."     Tbis  was  said  to  Satan,  in  answer  to  his 
insolent  challenge,   "  Doth  Job  fear  God  for  nought  ?     Put  forth  thy 
hand,  &c.  and  he  will  curse  thee  to  thy  face."    And  the  pious  sufferer 
himself  ascribes  his  affliction  not  to  Satan,  but  to  God.     "  The  Lord 
gave,  and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away,"  &c.     And  again,   "  the  Lord 
said  unto  Satan,  Behold  he  is  in  thine  hand,  but  save  his  life."    Chap. 
2:6.     "  Even  the  devil  himself,"  remarks  Calvin,   "  dared  not  to  at- 
tempt any  thing  against  Job,  without  his  permission  and  command." 
(Book  1,  chap.  16,  sec.  7.)     The  conduct  of  Shimei  in  cursing  David 
is  another  example.     "So  let  him  curse,"  said  the  afflicted  monarch, 
"because  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  him,  Curse  David.     Let  him  alone, 
and  let  him  curse,  for  the  Lord  hath  bidden  him."    2  Sam.   16  :  10, 
11.     "When  he  confesses  Shimei's  maledictions  to  proceed  from  the 
Divine  command,"  remarks  Calvin,   "he  by  no  means  commends  his 
obedience  as  fulfilling  a  Divine  precept;  but  acknowledging  his  tongue 
as  the  scourge  of  God,  he  patiently  submits  to  the  chastisement.    Let 
it  be  remembered  that  whilst  God,  by  means  of  the  impious,  fulfills 
his  secret  decrees,  they  are  not  excusable  as  though  they  were  obedi- 
28 


326  APPENDIX   I. 

ent  to  his  precepts,  which  they  wantonly  and  intentionally  violate." 
(Book  1,  chap.  18,  sec.  4.)  "Augustine  somewhere  makes  the  fol- 
lowing correct  distinction :  that  they  sin  proceeds  from  themselves  ; 
that  in  sinning  they  perform  this  or  that  particular  action,  is  from  the 
power  of  God,  who  divideth  the  darkness  according  to  his  pleasure." 
(Book  2,  chap.  4,  sec.  4.)  Is  this  the  same  as  saying,  God  makes  angels 
and  men  sin !  Is  it  consistent  with  truth  and  righteousness  to  charge 
Calvin  with  teaching  that  "  God  makes  men  and  angels,  sin  by  his 
present  irresistible  power  ?"     "  Oh,  shame,  where  is  thy  blush  !" 

To  fasten  the  most  impious  seutiments  upon  Calvinists,  the  "  Dia- 
logue" next  adduces  several  references  to  Dr.  Twisse,  who  was  the 
honored  Moderator  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  as  follows  : 

I.  "  All  things  come  to  pass  by  the  efficacious  and  irresistible  will  of 
God."  But  this  was  originally  the  charge  of  Arminius  against  Cal- 
vinism, "efficaci  Dei  voluntate,  et  cui  resisti  nequeat  omnia  evenire," 
not  the  language  of  Twisse.  It  is  true,  Dr.  Twisse  professes  his  will- 
ingness to  adopt  this  language  with  certain  explanations,  the  design 
and  purport  of  which  may  be  learned  from  his  definition  of  the  Divine 
will  or  decree — "Propositum  Dei,  ut  faciat  vel  permittat  aliquid;" 
that  is,  "  the  purpose  of  God  to  do  or  permit  anything."  Would  not 
Christian  men  be  ashamed  of  such  perversion  of  the  sentiments  of  any 
author? 

II.  (Vindicise  Gracise,  pars  3,  p.  19.)  "It  is  impossible  anything 
should  ever  be  done  but  that  to  which  God  impels  the  will  of  man." 
Dr.  T.  defines  the  will  of  God  to  be  "his  purpose  to  do  or  permit  any 
thing."  He  does  not  admit  that  the  Divine  will  (voluntas  Dei)  is  ne- 
cessarily efficient,  in  the  sense  of  being  the  cause  of  all  events ;  but  ho 
asserts  merely  that  nothing  can  come  to  pass  without  the  will  (either 
efficacious  or  permissive)  of  God.  Dr.  T.  also  takes  much  pains  to 
show  that  the  Divine  will  does  not  interfere  with  the  perfect  freedom 
of  men  in  any  of  their  moral  actions.  "Ego  constanter  nego,"  says 
he.  "  energeticum  Dei  decretuin,  quicquam  prcejudicare  libertati 
creaturce,  sed  potious  stabilire  et  corroborare."  In  connection  with 
Wesley's  extract,  Dr.  Twisse  also  largely  explains  the  distinction  be- 
tween what  is  physical  in  moral  action,  and  what  is  moral,  "bonum 
aut  malum."  Of  the  act,  considered  as  physical,  he  admits  that  God 
is  the  author,  "for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being." 
But  this  is  another  and  a  very  different  thing  from  "impelling"  the 
will  of  man  to  wickedness,  which  he  utterly  disclaims  and  strenuously 
denies  to  be  a  part  of  his  scheme,  as  will  more  fully  appear  under  the 
next  reference.     This  distinction  will  also  explain  what  Dr.  T.  means 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED.         327 

by  saying  "God  is  the  author  of  that  action  which  is  sinful,"  &c.  He 
is  the  author  of  the  action  (physically  considered),  but  not  the  author 
of  that  which  is  sinful  in  the  action.  And  Wesley,  as  published  by  the 
Conference,  says  the  same  thing :  "God  produces  the  action  which  is 
sinful.  It  is  his  work  and  his  will.  And  yet  the  sinfulness  of  the  action 
is  neither  his  work  nor  will."*     Thus  Twisse  and  Wesley  agiee. 

111.  (VindiciiM,  pars  3,  p.  22.)  "God  necessitates  them  only  to 
the  act  of  sin,  not  to  the  deformity  of  sin."  This  is  not  a  fair  trans- 
lation of  any  passage  we  have  been  able  to  find.  And  the  latter  part 
of  the  professed  quotation,  "when  God  makes  angels  or  men  sin,"  &o. 
we  are  persuaded  is  a  gross  misrepresentation.  "  Quid  quod  hodie," 
Bays  Twisse,  "  satis  constat  inter  theologos,  impossibile  esse  quicquam 
fieri,  cujus  auctor  non  sit  Deus,  quoad  substantia™  actus.  Neque  minus 
luculentum  est  fieri  non  posse  ut  Deus  sit  auctor  malitiae  aut  peccati, 
qua  peccatum  est."  That  is,  "  It  is  satisfactorily  proved  among  the- 
ologians of  the  present  day,  that  nothing  can  take  place  of  which  God 
is  not  the  author,  as  respects  the  substance  of  the  act.  Nor  is  it  less 
evident  that  it  cannot  be  that  God  should  be  the  author  of  evil  or  sin,  as 
respects  its  moral  turpitude."  Is  this  the  same  as  to  say,  "God 
makes  angels  and  men  sin!"  And  in  regard  to  the  views  of  Dr. 
Twisse  on  the  subject  of  necessity,  the  following  are  his  own  words : 
'•  Whereas  we  see  some  things  come  to  pass  necessarily,  some  contin- 
gently, so  God  hath  ordained  that  all  things  shall  come  to  pass :  but 
necessary  things  necessarily,  and  contingent  things  contingently,  that 
is,  avoidably,  and  with  a  possibility  of  not  coming  to  pass— for  every 
university  scholar  knows  this  to  be  the  notion  of  contingency."  Is 
this  equivalent  to  saying  that  "  all  things  come  to  pass  by  the  effica- 
cious and  irresistible  will  of  God?" 

IV.  Piscator  is  next  misrepresented  in  this  Arminian  "  Dialogue," 
as  follows:  "God  made  Adam  and  Eve  for  this  very  purpose,  that 
they  might  be  tempted  and  led  into  sin ;  and  by  force  of  his  decree  it 
could  not  otherwise  be  but  they  must  sin."  "The  reprobates  more 
especially,  who  -mere  predestinated  to  damnation,'''  &c.  "We  neither 
can  do  more  good  than  we  do,  nor  less  evil  than  we  do:  because  God 
from  eternity  has  precisely  ordained  that  both  the  good  and  the  evil 
should  be  so  done."  One  part  of  these  extracts,  which  we  have  put  in 
italics,  reminds  us  of  Wesley's  "horrible"  decree  of  reprobation,  viz. 
"God  predestinates  or  foreappoints  all  disobedient  unbelievers  to 
damnation,  according  to  his  foreknowledge  of  all  their  works  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world."  The  writings  of  Piscator  referred  to,  we 
*  Original  Sin,  part  3,  sec.  7.    Misc.  Works,  vol.  ii. 


328  APPENDIX   I. 

have  not  been  able  to  procure,  but  the  following  extract  from  his  com- 
mentary on  Acts  2:  23,  -will  exhibit  his  real  sentiments:  "  Impiorum 
scelera  pendent  a  decreto  Dei,  quia  Deus  deer  evit  per  milter  e  Satanae, 
ut  eos  ad  scelera  impellat.  Nee  Deus  malitiam  instillet,  nee  illi  respi- 
ciant  ad  voluntatem  Dei,  sed  ad  explendum  libidines  suas,  idque  contra 
expressa  interdicta  Dei."  That  is,  "The  wicked  actions  of  impious 
men  depend  upon  the  Divine  decree ;  because  God  has  decreed  to  permit 
Sata?i  to  instigate  them  to  deeds  of  crime.  Neither  does  God  instil 
evil  into  their  minds,  nor  do  they  have  respect  to  the  Divine  will,  but 
to  the  fulfillment  of  their  evil  desires  and  lusts,  and  that  contrary  to 
his  express  prohibition."  Is  this  the  same  as,  "  God  procures  adultery, 
cursings,  lyings,"  and  "by  force  of  his  decree  it  could  not  otherwise 
be  but  they  must  sin  ?"    Oh  shame  ! 

V.  Zanchius  is  represented  as  teaching  that  "  God's  first  constitu- 
tion was  that  some  should  be  destined  to  eternal  ruin  ;  and  to  this  end 
their  sins  were  ordained,  and  denial  of  grace  in  order  to  their  sins." 
But  there  is  no  such  passage  in  the  section  of  the  works  of  Zanchius 
referred  to  in  the  tract ;  and  the  accuracy  and  fairness  of  the  extract 
may  be  learned  from  the  following,  which  are  the  express  words  of 
that  author:  "  Deus,  ut  quotidie permittit  tara  pios  quam  hnpios  labi 
in  peccata;  sicquoque  ab  eterno  decrevit  ut  omnes  peccare  permitte- 
ret.  Quare  non  falso  dictum  universos  homines  eo  fuisse  ordinatos,  ut 
permitterentur  peccare  ;"  that  is  "God,  as  he  daily  permits  the  good 
as  well  as  the  wicked  to  fall  into  sin,  so  also  from  eternity  decreed 
to  permit  all  men  to  sin.  Wherefore  it  is  correctly  said  that  all  men 
were  so  far  the  objects  of  ordination,  that  they  might  be  permitted  to 
sin." 

VI.  Zanchius  (De  natura  Dei,  pp.  553,  554)  is  next  quoted  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Both  the  reprobate  and  the  elect  were  foreordained  to  sin,  as 
sin,  that  the  glory  of  God  might  be  declared  thereby."  We  have 
already  shown  that  this  author  taught  directly  the  reverse  of  the  sen- 
timent charged  against  him.  Hear  him  still  further :  "Deus  ut  in 
nemine,  autor  est  peccati,  quatenus  peccatum  est;  ita  neminem  ad  pecca- 
tum  quatenus  peccatum  est,  admittendum  predestinavit.  Nam  odit 
peccatum  Deus,  ut  peccatum  est.  Ac  proinde  ad  illud  quatenus  tale 
est,  neminem  dicendus  predestinasse,"  &c.  In  these  extracts  the  author 
asserts,  directly  in  the  face  of  Wesley's  quotation,  that  God  does  not 
foreordain  sin,  as  sin ! !  The  following  passages  are  from  his  treatise 
on  "  Absolute  Predestination,"  translated  by  Toplady  :  "By  the  pur- 
pose or  decree  of  God,  we  mean  his  determinate  counsel  whereby  he 
did  from  all  eternity  preordain  whatever  he  should  do,  or  would  permit 


FALSE  QUOTATIONS  EXPOSED. 


329 


to  be  done  in  time."  "  Predestination,  as  regards  the  reprobate,  is 
that  eternal,  most  holy,  sovereign  and  immutable  act  of  God's  will, 
whereby  he  hath  determined  to  leave  (or  permit)  some  men  to  perish 
in  their  sins,  and  to  be  justly  punished  for  them."  "God  does  not 
(as  we  are  slanderously  reported  to  affirm)  compel  the  wicked  to  sin, 
as  the  rider  spurs  on  an  unwilling  horse.  God  only  says  in  effect 
that  tremendous  word,  Let  them  alone."  '"Tis  most  certainly  his 
will  to  permit  sin,  but  he  cannot  be  himself  the  author  of  it."  "  He 
alone  is  entitled  to  the  name  of  the  true  God,  who  governs  all  things, 
and  without  whose  will  (efficient  or  permissive)  nothing  can  be  done." 
"From  what  has  been  said,"  continues  Zanchius,  "it  follows  that 
Augustine,  Luther,  Bucer,  and  other  learned  divines,  are  not  to  be 
blamed  for  asserting  that  God  may  in  some  sense  be  said  to  will  the 
being  and  commission  of  sin.  For  was  this  contrary  to  his  determin- 
ing will  of  permission,  either  he  would  not  be  omnipotent,  or  sin  could 
have  no  place."  "No  one  can  deny  that  God  permits  sin;  but  he 
neither  permits  it  ignorantly  nor  unwillingly;  therefore  knowingly 
and  willingly.  Luther  steadfastly  maintains  this  in  his  book,  '  De 
Servo  Arbitrio,'  (The  will  a  slave).  However  it  should  be  carefully 
noticed,  1st.  That  God's  permission  of  sin  does  not  arise  from  his 
taking  delight  in  it.  Sin,  as  sin,  is  the  abominable  thing  that  his  soul 
hateth.  2.  That  God's  free  and  voluntary  permission  of  sin,  lays  no 
man  under  any  forcible  or  compulsive  necessity  of  committing  it.  Nor 
is  he  in  the  proper  sense  accessory  to  it,  but  only  remotely  and  nega- 
tively so,  inasmuch  as  he  could,  if  he  pleased,  absolutely  prevent  it." 
In  view  of  these  extracts,  we  leave  the  reader  to  decide  whether  Zan- 
chius has  been  fairly  dealt  with  by  Wesley  and  his  Arminian  followers. 
VII.  Peter  Martyr  (Comment,  in  Rom.  pp.  36-413)  comes  next,  as 
follows  :  "God  supplies  wicked  men  with  opportunities  of  sinning,  and 
inclines  their  hearts  thereto.  He  blinds,  deceives  and  seduces  them. 
He,  by  his  working  on  their  hearts,  bends  and  stirs  them  to  do  evil." 
Now  with  this  compare,  or  rather  contrast  the  following:  "God  doth 
not  properly  stir  up  man  unto  sin;  but  yet  he  useth  the  sins  of  wicked 
men,  and  also  guideth  them,  lest  they  should  pass  beyond  their 
bounds."  "  The  defect,  which  properly  is  sin,  proceedeth  not  of  God ; 
but  the  action,  which  is  a  natural  thing,  wherein  the  defect  sticketh, 
cannot  be  drawn  forth  but  by  the  common  influence  of  God.''  Is  this 
the  same  as  to  say,  "God,  by  his  working  on  their  hearts,  bends  and 
stirs  them  to  evil,"  &c?  Our  quotations  are  from  his  "  Common 
Places."  His  Commentary  on  Romans,  as  also  the  works  of  Zuinrle 
on  "  Providence,"  we  have  not  been  able  to  procure.  But  from  the 
28* 


330  APPENDIX   I. 

specimens  which  have  passed  before  us,  we  may  readily  suppose  they 
have  not  been  handled  more  fairly  than  the  others. 

VIII.  We  cannot  close  the  discussion,  without  noticing  the  fact  that, 
besides  the  instrumentality  of  their  Tract  Society,  the  Sabbath  school 
is  made  to  contribute  to  the  same  unhallowed  enterprise.  In  No.  32, 
p.  96,  of  the  "  Methodist  Sunday  School  and  Youth's  Library,"  they 
state  the  doctrine  of  Predestination  as  follows:  "  That  God  has  by  an 
eternal  and  unchangeable  decree,  predestinated  to  eternal  damnation 
by  far  the  greater  part  of  mankind,  and  that  absolutely,  without  any 
respect  to  their  works,  but  only  for  the  showing  of  the  glory  of  his 
justice.  And  that  for  the  bringing  this  about,  he  hath  appointed  theso 
miserable  souls  necessarily  to  walk  in  their  wicked  ways,  that  so  his 
justice  may  lay  hold  of  them."  To  those  who  have  read  the  forego- 
ing Letters,  and  the  previous  parts  of  this  Appendix,  we  need  not  say 
that  this  is  not  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  Presbyterian  Confession,  and 
by  our  approved  writers.  The  minister  who  should  dare  broach  such 
a  sentiment  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  would  be  brought  to  trial  for 
heresy  and  impiety.  The  author  of  the  Sunday  school  book  puts  the 
passage  in  quotation  marks  ;  but  except  by  such  unfair  and  dishonor- 
able treatment  as  we  have  ah'eady  exposed,  we  challenge  the  preachers 
to  produce  such  a  passage  from  any  of  our  approved  authors. 

To  fasten  the  impression  upon- the  minds  of  the  young  and  unsus- 
pecting that  this  is  a  true  exhibition  of  the  doctrine,  they  are  pre- 
sented with  the  usual  array  of  references  to  Calvin  and  others.  And 
lest  the  point  and  direction  of  the  whole  should  be  misunderstood,  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  comes  in  for  its  share  of  perversion 
and  misrepresentation.  We  have  a  repetition  of  Dr.  Fisk's  unright- 
eous quotation  of  chap.  3,  sec.  5 :  "  Chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting 
glory,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  and  good  works,  as  conditions  or 
causes  moving  him  thereto."  The  clause  in  italics,  Dr.  Fisk  and  the 
Suuday  school  book  both  carefully  omit,  for  a  very  obvious  reason. 
"The  phrases,  'eternal  election'  and  'eternal  decree  of  election,'" 
remarks  Watson,  "  can  in  common  sense  mean  only  an  eternal  pur- 
pose to  elect  or  choose  out  of  the  world,  and  sanctify  in  time  by  the 
Spirit  and  blood  of  Christ."  "This  is  a  doctrine  which  no  one  will 
contend  with  them."  Very  well.  Is  it  supposed  then  that  this  eter- 
nal purpose  "to  choose  and  sanctify"  was  founded  on  a  foresight  of 
faith  and  good  works ;  in  other  words,  on  a  foresight  of  sanctification  ? 
That  is,  that  God  foresaw  the  sanctification  of  certain  persons,  and 
then  purposed  to  choose  and  sanctify  them  ?  Truly,  it  is  a  useless 
kind  of  election  this,  to  purpose  to  sanctify  those  whom  he  foresaw  to 
be  previously  sanctified! 


THE   HEATHEN   WORLD.  331 

Again :  In  quoting  chap.  3,  sec.  7,  of  our  Confession,  this  Sabbath 
school  volume  suppresses  the  clause  which  we  italicize,  as  follows: 
"  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign 
power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  to  dishonor  and 
wrath,  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice." 

Other  equally  humiliating  examples  might  be  adduced  from  this 
volume  of  instruction  for  youth,  of  the  strange  methods  adopted  by  some 
professedly  Christian  men,  to  promote  Christianity.  We  can  only  say, 
whether  these  things  be  the  alphabet  or  the  higher  branches  of  "  sin- 
less  perfection,"  "0  my  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their  secret;  unto 
iheir  assembly,  mine  honor,  be  not  thou  united!" 


APPENDIX    II. 

THE  HEATHEN  WORLD— ITS  STATE  AND  PROSPECTS. 

This  is  the  subject  of  the  Vllth  chapter  of  the  "  Objections  to 
Calvinism."  As  this  topic  did  not  properly  fall  under  any  of  the 
preceding  heads,  we  append  a  few  strictures  here. 

1.  The  Presbyterian  Confession  (chap.  10,  sec.  4)  teaches  that  men 
"cannot  be  saved  in  any  other  way  than  by  truly  coming  to  Christ; 
though  they  be  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the 
light  of  nature  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  profess."  Or  as 
otherwise  expressed  (chap.  1),  "  The  light  of  nature  and  the  works  of 
creation  and  Providence,  *  *  *  leave  men  inexcusable,  *  *  *  but 
are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will  which 
is  necessary  to  salvation."  Such  we  suppose  to  be  the  broad  ground  of 
our  common  Christianity.  The  opposite  is  Deism.  We  can  hardly 
imagine  that  Arminians  design  to  sympathize  with  infidels. 

2.  But  while  our  Confession,  in  the  passages  referred  to,  speaks  of 
the  ordinary  dealings  of  the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  toward  his  fallen 
creatures,  and  represents  the  revealed  "knowledge  of  God  and  his 
will"  as  "necessary  to  salvation"  (for  if  there  be  any  other  way,  why 
did  Christ  suffer  the  unspeakable  agonies  of  the  cross),  these  passages 
of  course  have  no  reference  to  infants,  and  adults  who  are  idiots.  Nor 
does  our  Confession  teach  that  there  are  no  cases  of  extraordinary  appli- 
cation of  saving  grace  to  the  souls  of  those  adults  who  have  never 
heard  of  the  Saviour.  Calvinists  indulge  the  pleasing  hope,  that 
especially  in  the  last  struggle,  some    of    the  heathen  may   be  thus 


332  APPENDIX  II. 

extraordinarily  enlightened  and  saved.  It  must  be  admitted,  however, 
that  the  Scriptures  say  very  little  on  this  subject;  aud  here  they  are 
closely  imitated  by  our  standards. 

It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  "Presbyterians  believe  in  the  inevita- 
ble damnation  of  the  whole  heathen  world."*  Ridgely  is  an  accredited 
authority,  and  was  certainly  a  Calvinist,  yet  these  are  his  words: 
"  We  know  not  when,  to  whom,  or  by  what  means  God  may  reveal 
Christ  to  those  who  sit  in  darkness.  *  *  *  As  for  the  possibility  of 
his  revealing  Christ  to  those  who  do  not  sit  under  the  sound  of  the 
gospel,  we  will  not  deny  it."  Again:  "Others  not  willing,  with  the 
Deists,  to  set  aside  the  necessity  of  Divine  Revelation,  have  supposed 
that  God  may  lead  many  of  the  heathen  into  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  . 
before  they  go  out  of  the  world,  by  some  secret  methods  not  to  be  dis- 
cerned by  us."f  This,  he  says,  was  Dr.  Watts'  judgment,  and  with 
this  sentiment  he  appears  to  accord. 

3.  No  person  of  common  sense  has  ever  questioned  the  following 
statement  of  Ridgely  :  "The  heathen  shall  not  be  condemned  for  not 
believing  in  Christ,  of  whom  they  never  heard."  When,  therefore, 
Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson  say,  "  If  a  heathen  may  justly  be  damned 
for  not  having  faith  in  Christ,  of  whom  he  never  heard,"  &c.  &c.  their 
eloquence  "  wastes  its  sweetness  on  the  desert  air!" 

Laying  out  of  view  entirely  the  millions  of  infant  and  imbecile  hea- 
then, who  doubtless  experience  the  saving  benefits  of  the  infinite  sac- 
rifice of  Calvary,  though  in  an  extraordinary  manner — the  Calvinist 
bases  his  expectation  of  the  salvation  of  a  part  of  the  adult  heathen 
world  upon  grounds  altogether  different  from  those  alleged  by  Armin- 
ians.  The  Calvinist  founds  his  hope  of  their  salvation  on  the  Divine 
mercy — the  Arminian  founds  his  upon  the  justice  of  God.  That  this  is 
the  true  difference  we  proceed  to  prove. 

4.  "Are  the  heathen  all  necessarily  damned,"  *  *  *  say  Fos- 
ter and  Simpson,  "  because  they  did  not  live  up  to  the  light  they  had  ? 
But  can  this  be  shown,  that  no  heathen  ever  acted  according  to  his 
best  light ?"X  Or  as  it  is  otherwise  expressed — "Are  those  compre- 
hended among  the  perishing,  who  do  the  best  they  can  according  to  the 
limited  light  they  enjoy?"  But  do  these  authors  really  suppose  that 
there  is  such  a  class  of  persons  in  heathen  lands  ?  Where  is  the 
Christian  who  has  the  presumption  to  claim  that  "he  always  lives  up 
to  his  best  light" — "that  he  alwaj's  does  the  best  he  can."'  Such  a 
person  would  be  a  bright  specimen  of  "sinless  perfection,"  and  would 
be  hard  to  find  among  the  heathen;  since  he  is  "a  rare  bird"  even 

*  Objections,  p.  201.        f  ^°d.v  of  Divinity,  vol.  ii.  p.  490.        }  Objections,  p.  205. 


TIIE   HEATHEN   WORLD.  333 

under  all  the  influences  of  the  gospel!  If  this  therefore  he  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Arminian  helief  that  the  heathen  are  saved  without  the 
gospel,  it  is  a  sandy  one.  It  is  assuredly  not  the  Christian  foundation, 
which  is  Christ  and  Him  crucified — not  "doing  the  best  we  can." 
"Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according 
to  his  mercy  he  saved  us" — "not  of  works  lest  any  man  should  boast." 
"  There  is  no  other  name  given  under  heaven  among  men  whereby  we 
can  be  saved  but  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  Indeed  if  "doing  the 
best  we  can"  will  secure  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  it  remains  to  be 
shown  that  there  was  any  necessity  for  the  Saviour  to  suffer  and  die — 
since  men  might  have  done  "  the  best  they  could"  as  well  without,  as 
with  a  Saviour.  Will  it  be  replied,  that  through  his  sufferings  and 
death  the  heathen  without  the  gospel,  receive  grace  and  strength? 
Even  granting  the  truth  of  the  sentiment  (which  to  say  the  least,  is 
exceedingly  doubtful),  is  it  not  an  admitted  principle  that  obligation 
increases  in  proportion  as  grace  and  strength  are  increased ;  that  duty 
is  in  the  ratio  of  privilege  aud  opportunity,  and  that  to  whom  much  is 
given,  of  him  will  much  be  required  ?"  How  then  can  the  death  of 
Christ  aid  the  heathen  to  "do  the  best  he  can,"  since  in  proportion  as 
it  furnishes  strength,  it  adds  to  his  obligations  ?  Truly,  if  doing  "the 
best  they  can  according  to  the  light  they  enjoy"  be  the  condition  of 
salvation,  it  would  seem  that  the  less  light  the  better,  because  the  less 
their  duty  and  the  more  easy  to  comply  with  its  requirements.  In- 
deed the  idea  of  Christ  by  his  atonement  communicating  grace  and 
strength  to  the  heathen  to  "do  the  best  ho  can,"  is  intrinsically  ab- 
surd. Who  ever  speaks  in  this  way  of  matters  of  ordiuary  life — for 
example,  who  would  speak  of  communicating  strength  to  an  infant  to 
walk  as  soon  or  as  fast  as  it  can ;  or  to  a  man  to  leap  as  high  as  he 
can?  It  involves  this  contradiction,  that  it  first  supposes  the  ability  to 
do  a  certain  thing,  and  then  in  the  communication  of  additional 
strength,  implies  an  inability  to  do  the  same  thing. 

5.  With  the  limitations  now  stated,  let  us  look  at  the  testimony  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  on  this  subject.  Do  they  teach  that  crdinarily 
salvation  may  be  secured  without  the  preaching,  hearing  and  reception 
of  the  gospel  ? 

(i.)  Listen  to  the  Apostle  Paul  in  reply  to  this  inquiry.  Rom.  10  : 
13-15.  "Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
saved.  How  then  shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  be- 
lieved? And  how  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not 
heard  ?  And  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?  Aud  how 
shall  they  preach  except  they  be  sent?"     Salvation  is  bestowed  upou 


334  APPENDIX   II. 

"  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord"  (Jesus).  But  they 
alone  can  "call  on  him"  who  "believe"  in  him:  "but  how  shall  they 
believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?"  How  is  it  possible 
in  stronger  and  more  emphatic  terms,  to  assert  the  necessity  that  the 
gospel  should  be  heard,  in  order  to  be  believed;  or  tk&t faith,  whether 
in  Jew  or  heathen,  civilized  or  uncivilized,  "  cometh  by  hearing,  and 
hearing  by  the  word  of  God."  That,  therefore,  by  which  "faith 
cometh,"  and  without  which  the  Spirit  of  God  demands,  "how  shall 
they  believe  and  be  saved  ?"  must  needs  be  essential  to  salvation. 
TLis  view  of  the  subject  is  confirmed  by  the  great  commission  of  the 
risen  Saviour,  "  Go  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature :  He  that  be- 
lieveth  shall  be  saved,"  &c;  thus  distinctly  recognizing  the  truth,  that 
in  order  to  faith  or  believing  in  Christ,  the  gospel  must  be  preached 
and  heard.  Nor  is  the  force  of  this  argument  evaded  by  alleging  that 
it  appears  to  exclude  reading  the  Scriptures,  and  scriptural  tracts 
from  the  class  of  means  by  which  "  faith  cometh."  Preaching  and 
hearing  the  gospel  were  the  almost  exclusive  means  in  primitive  times, 
when  as  yet  copies  of  the  Scriptures  were  very  scarce  and  difficult  of 
access.  Since,  therefore,  the  Saviours  command,  "Go  preach  the 
gospel,"  did  not  exclude,  but  rather  embraced  the  other  appropriate 
methods  of  bringing  the  gospel  in  direct  contact  with  the  soul;  so,  for  the 
same  reason,  the  argument  of  Paul  must  be  regarded  as  equally  com- 
prehensive. The  great  truth,  however,  is  equally  established  in  both 
cases,  viz.  that  in  order  to  faith  and  salvation,  the  gospel  must  be  ex- 
hibited, and  brought  to  bear  in  its  redeeming  and  sanctifying  power, 
upon  the  lost  soul. 

(ii.)  The  same  truth  is  taught  in  Rom.  2:  12.  "As  many  as  have 
sinned  without  law,  shall  also  perish  without  law."  To  sin  without 
law  is,  if  we  mistake  not,  almost  universally  understood  by  Arminiana 
themselves,  to  mean,  to  sin  without  the  knowledge  of  revealed  religion. 
The  Apostle  is  speaking  of  "  the  Gentiles  which  have  not  the  law," 
and  which  "  have  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,"  "their 
conscience  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  accusing  or  else  ex- 
cusing" them  in  their  conduct.  Now,  says  Paul,  as  many  of  the  hea- 
then as  have  sinned  against  the  law  of  conscience,  without  the  know- 
ledge of  revealed  religion,  "  shall  perish."  In  the  same  connection 
of  argument,  he  tells  us  that  "all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God,"  including  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  ;  and  so  far  is  he 
from  finding  room  for  a  class  of  persons  who  are  saved  by  doing  "the 
best  they  can,"  that  he  speaks  of  "the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is 
by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe  ;  for  there 


THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  335 

M  no  difference:"  and  again  the  question  returns,  "bow  shall  they  bo- 
lieve  in  bun  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  I" 

(iii.)  A  third  proof  of  the  perishing  condition  of  the  heathen  is 
derived  from  the  views  which  the  early  converts  from  heathenism  were 
taught  to  entertain  of  their  previous  state  and  prospects.  "  Where- 
fore," says  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  Christians,  "remember  that  ye, 
being  in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh  who  are  called  uncircum- 
cision,"  &c.  "  that  at  that  time  ye  were  without  Christ,  being  aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  and  strangers  to  the  covenants  of 
promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world."  Eph.  2:11, 
12.  Here  is  an  inspired  description  of  the  condition  of  the  heathen 
without  the  gospel.  We  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Ephesian 
converts  had  all  been  of  the  most  abandoned  and  degraded  cast,  or  that 
their  character  bad  differed  materially  from  that  of  the  mass  of  the 
Gentile  world ;  yet  of  these  persons,  without  any  exception,  the  hea- 
then state  is  pronounced  by  Inspiration  to  have  been  Christless  and 
hopeless.  If  the  Apostle  Paul  had  entertained  the  Arminian  notions 
of  Messrs.  Foster  and  Simpson,  his  discourse  would  probably  ha\e 
been  something  like  the  following :  "  Dear  brethren,  remember  the 
estate  from  which  you  have  been  transferred.  It  is  true  that  some  of 
you  were  in  a  very  bad  condition ;  and  I  don't  wonder  at  it,  for  you 
neglected  to  improve  the  light  (darkness  ?  Eph.  6:12,  Col.  1:13), 
which  you  enjoyed :  but  thanks  be  to  God,  or  to  yourselves,  there  were 
some  of  you  tcho  were  doing  the  best  you  could  according  to  the  limited 
light  (darkness?  Eph.  5:  11,  Thess.  5:5)  you  enjoyed;  and  to  say 
that  you  were  'without  God'  (original,  atheists,)  would  be  exceed- 
ingly 'repulsive  and  not  calculated  to  do  any  good;'  and  to  affirm 
that  you  had  'no  hope'  of  salvation  would  be  'offensive' — 'an  as- 
sertion of  very  doubtful  character.'  Indeed,  to  be  plain  with  you, 
brethren,  to  be  '  without  Christ,'  without  a  true  knowledge  and  an 
experimental  acquaintance  with  Christianity  and  its  great  Author,  is 
an  evil  as  regards  this  life  ;  but  as  regards  your  prospects  for  eternal 
happiness,  if  you  only  'do  the  best  you  can,'  to  be  'without  Christ' 
is  a  very  small  disadvantage,  if  indeed  it  be  any  disadvantage  at  all. 
For  'to  whom  little  is  given,  of  him  little  will  be  required.'" 

We  will  not  pursue  the  subject  farther.  When  our  Arminian 
friends  publish  their  next  book  against  Calvinism,  it  would  add  much 
to  its  value,  if  they  would  endeavor  to  understand  the  suliject  before 
they  put  pen  to  paper.  It  is  a  great  pity  that  so  much  eloquent 
writing,  especially  in  this  chapter  on  "the  Heathen  World" — such 
powerful  appeals  and  overwhelming  outbursts — "fiendish  cruelty" — 


336  APPENDIX. 

"unconscious  babe  damned" — "insatiable  jaws" — "spirit  shivers" — 
"  soul  mutinies" — "shrouds  the  universe" — "monster  of  cruelty" — 
"  Moloch" — "  damnation  a  million  fold" — "  deeper,  hotter,  more  awful 
hell" — "  devouring  abyss" — "  devouring  crater" — "  cover  the  heavens 
with  dismay" — "hon-id,  horrid,"  &c.  &c. ;  it  is  a  pity,  we  repeat, 
that  such  fine  composition  should  be  entirely  lost.  It  may  be  all 
"strictly  logical,"  as  Bishop  Simpson  would  say;  but  wo  Calvinists 
are  so  unfortunate  as  to  be  unable  to  perceive  it. 


Note. — In  our  Letter  XVII.  p.  276,  the  meeting  houses,  parsonages  and 
other  property  controlled  by  the  traveling  preachers,  are  said  to  have  been 
estimated  in  1843  at  from  four  to  five  millions  of  dollars.  It  was  added 
that  now  (1860)  the  samo  property  is  worth  probably  not  less  than  ten  mil- 
lions. This  estimate,  however,  is  much  too  low.  In  the  Address  of  the 
Bishops  to  the  General  Conference,  in  Session  at  Buffalo,  the  value  of  "the 
churches  and  parsonages"  alone,  is  estimated  at  twenty-one  millions  and 
nearly  a  quarter — being  an  increase  in  tivo  years,  "  of  the  estimated  value  of 
church  property,  $3,341,624." 

'•  The  Western  Book  Concern"  reports  sales  of  boohs  for  four  yoars  ending 
January  21,  1860,  amounting  to  over  one  million  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
seven  thousand  dollars.  What  wore  the  actual  profits  on  these  books  wo  are 
not  informed.  But  the  gross  profits  of  their  periodicals  published  at  Cincin- 
nati, St.  Louis  and  Chicago,  for  four  years,  are  sot  down  at  eighty-nine  thou- 
sand six  hundred  dollars. 

From  these  facts,  somo  idea  may  be  formod  of  the  annual  profits  accruing 
at  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Boston,  Pittsburgh,  &c. 


Date  Due 

P   27  3B 

' 

f) 

